Executive Summary
Consumers could realize benefits that exceed the investment costs for modernization by a factor
of three or more if they, along with local governments and innovators, are engaged as partners in
grid modernizations. The Perfect Power Institute™ estimates the potential benefits of
investments to be about $1,200 per year for a typical household with an estimated cost of about
$400 per year, per household. The estimated benefits would be even higher if the impact on
public health, safety and security could be precisely quantified and included.
Smart Grid Costs and Benefits Summary
SECTION
5.0
COST CATEGORY
Total Estimated Cost (over a 15-year period)
 Clean power supply investment
 Transmission and distribution investment
 End-use investment, including local power
COST PER YEAR
PER HOUSEHOLD
~$400
$80
$150
$165
SECTION
BENEFITS CATEGORY
VALUE PER YEAR
PER HOUSEHOLD
6.0
Total Estimated Savings (excluding security and safety)
 Direct bill savings (including smaller rate increases)
 Indirect benefits (e.g., reduced economic losses and deaths)
 Future revenue (e.g., from providing grid services)
~$1,200
$585
$400
$250
Information on calculations for this table are included in Sections 5 and 6 of this research paper.
The investment costs are estimated across three main grid categories — power supply, power
delivery and end-use consumption — with the greatest investment made at the consumption
level. The benefits for a household include: direct cost savings, such as avoided rate increases,
which will appear on the customer bill; indirect savings, such as reduced economic losses due to
power interruptions, which are not reflected on the customer bill; and future revenue potential for
providing electricity and ancillary services to the grid. Consumer benefits will increase over time
but the maximum benefits estimated as part of this paper could take five or more years to be
realized as the savings shown will be utilized to offset investment in system improvements. This
means that consumers may not see all, or most, of these savings until the investments are paid
off.
To realize the full potential of these investments and benefits, market reforms must be made that
empower consumers enabling them to generate greater savings and earn revenue for grid
services. A new electricity market that values customer participation will attract the interest and
investment of technology innovators. Local governments ought to become key partners and
investors in local electricity system improvements, enabling them to specify local needs and
coordinate with local infrastructure projects and programs to lower grid modernization costs.
Focused on local systems, these investments can produce greater impacts.
Finally, grid modernization depends on a new utility regulatory compact that rewards system
operators for tracking and eliminating system waste, such as the economic impact of outages
and operational inefficiencies. Indirect costs are substantial and should be quantified and tracked
for use in system improvement. Investments in the elimination of system waste can pay for
themselves.
PAGE 1 of 61
Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.1
Project Background .............................................................................................................. 5
2 What Is Grid Modernization? ........................................................................................... 7
2.1
2.2
Goals of Grid Modernization ................................................................................................ 7
Investment Categories ......................................................................................................... 7
2.3
Success Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 8
3 Electricity System Waste ............................................................................................... 10
3.1
Who Pays for System Waste? ........................................................................................... 11
3.2
Naperville — Eliminating Waste and Targeting Investment ........................................... 12
4 Investment and Benefit Prerequisites .......................................................................... 14
5 Investment Costs of Grid Modernization ...................................................................... 16
5.1
Clean Power Supply Investment ....................................................................................... 17
5.2
Power Delivery Investment ................................................................................................ 17
5.2.1 Transmission and Area Distribution .......................................................................... 18
5.2.2
Local Distribution System or Microgrid Improvements .............................................. 20
5.2.2.1
5.2.2.2
5.2.2.3
5.3
Local Substation Automation .................................................................................. 22
Circuit Loops with Smart Switches ......................................................................... 22
Undergrounding Local Cables (Lower Voltage) ...................................................... 22
End-Use Investment ........................................................................................................... 23
5.3.1 Local Clean Power Supply — Distributed Energy ..................................................... 23
5.3.2 Smart Meters ............................................................................................................. 23
5.3.3
Home Automation ...................................................................................................... 23
6 Benefits of Grid Modernization ...................................................................................... 24
6.1
Direct Bill Savings .............................................................................................................. 25
6.1.1 Electricity Consumption Savings ............................................................................... 26
6.1.2
6.1.3
Dynamic Pricing, Time-of-Use Savings and Shifting Peak Demand ......................... 27
Avoided New Capacity Costs .................................................................................... 28
6.1.3.1
6.1.3.2
Avoided New Generation Capacity Costs .............................................................. 28
Avoided New Delivery Capacity Costs ................................................................... 29
6.1.4
6.1.5
Improved Generation Efficiencies.............................................................................. 30
Reduced Transmission and Distribution Losses ....................................................... 30
6.1.6
Reduced Operating Costs ......................................................................................... 31
6.2
Indirect Savings .................................................................................................................. 31
6.2.1 Improved Reliability and Power Quality ..................................................................... 32
6.3
Future Revenue Potential .................................................................................................. 33
6.3.1 Revenue for Providing Electricity and Ancillary Services .......................................... 33
6.3.2 Emission Reduction Credits ...................................................................................... 34
6.4
Public Health, Safety and Homeland Security ................................................................. 35
6.4.1 Direct Contact with Power Lines................................................................................ 36
6.4.2
Outage Related Deaths and Injuries ......................................................................... 37
7 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 38
PAGE 2 of 61
8 References....................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A: Achieving Perfect Reliability ..................................................................... 41
Appendix B: Zero Direct Carbon Emissions on the IIT Campus .................................. 43
Appendix C: Waste Calculations ..................................................................................... 44
Building Inefficiency ....................................................................................................................... 44
Wasted Capital ............................................................................................................................... 45
Generation and Distribution Energy Inefficiency ............................................................................ 47
Poor Power Reliability and Quality ................................................................................................. 49
Emissions Waste Cost ................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix D: Benefit Calculations ................................................................................... 51
Electricity Consumption Savings .................................................................................................... 51
Dynamic Pricing, Time of Use, Shifting Peak Demand .................................................................. 52
Avoided New Generation Costs ..................................................................................................... 52
Avoided New Distribution Costs ..................................................................................................... 54
Generation Inefficiencies................................................................................................................ 55
Reduced Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Losses ................................................................. 57
Reliability and Power Quality ......................................................................................................... 59
Emission Reduction Credits ........................................................................................................... 60
Figures
Figure 1: Naperville SAIDI Improvements ............................................................................................ 42
Figure 2: IIT Fuel Mix ........................................................................................................................... 43
Tables
Table 1: Maintaining Electricity System Waste vs. Investing in Grid Modernization .............................. 5
Table 2: Electricity System Waste Summary (Direct and Indirect)....................................................... 11
Table 3: Estimated Annual Grid Modernization Costs* per Residential Household ............................. 16
Table 4: Transmission and Area Distribution Investments................................................................... 19
Table 5: Distribution Improvement Costs ............................................................................................. 20
Table 6: Summary of Estimated Annual Savings per Residential Household...................................... 24
Table 7: Baseline Electricity Consumption and Spending ................................................................... 25
Table 8: Adjusted Average Consumption ............................................................................................ 27
Table 9: Estimate of Avoided New Generation Capacity Costs ........................................................... 29
Table 10: Estimate of Avoided New Delivery Capacity Costs .............................................................. 29
Table 11: Generation Efficiency Savings ............................................................................................. 30
Table 12: Estimate of Annual Savings Due to Reduced T&D Losses .................................................. 31
Table 13: Comparison of Average National Reliability Metrics with U.S. Competitors ........................ 31
Table 14: Interruption Cost Indirect Savings ........................................................................................ 33
Table 15: Emissions Reduction Revenue/Savings .............................................................................. 35
Table 16: Worker Death Statistics by Trade ........................................................................................ 36
Table 17: Worker Death Statistics by Cause ....................................................................................... 36
Table 18: Naperville Smart Grid Process ............................................................................................. 42 PAGE 3 of 61
1 Introduction
The U.S. electricity system is wasting significant amounts of both energy and capital. Not only
does this inefficiency squander precious resources, but it also forces consumers to incur higher
than necessary monthly electricity costs and indirect costs. An updated, modern electricity grid
could reduce or even eliminate this waste, reduce costs associated with an inefficient system and
improve societal and economic conditions.
The projected benefits include:

Direct bill savings;

Indirect savings (e.g., economic losses from power interruptions);

Opportunity for consumers to generate revenue;

Job creation and economic competitiveness; and

Reduced environmental impacts.
This research paper explores the costs and benefits associated with grid modernization. It
provides estimates of the investments and potential benefits based on the opportunities for
eliminating system waste; lowering electricity costs; reducing environmental impacts; and
improving power efficiency, safety, reliability and quality.
Updating our nation’s aging electricity grid — like many infrastructure projects — is widely
regarded as a national priority. Consumers acknowledge that the grid is not perfect and that they
would like to see it improved, but have by and large learned to live with it as is. System operators
speak of cost savings associated with grid modernization, but ratepayers are cautious when it
comes to increased rates and wonder why rates must go up if this new system will save so much
money.
The question is not whether we should pay for improvements, because we are already paying.
The question is, “What would we rather pay for: a steady stream of waste, or an investment to
stop it?”
If the system continues to operate inefficiently, significant increases in peak load will require
system expansion to meet this new capacity, leading to rate increases while no investments are
made to reduce these costs by eliminating system waste. Grid modernization, on the other hand,
can reduce these costs by eliminating trillions of dollars of waste. Investment in a more efficient
system would eliminate the need for these expansion costs while increasing the effectiveness
and efficiency of the system, leading to reduced rates in the future. With investment in grid
modernization, system waste can be reduced by 31 percent while enabling households to realize
direct bill savings of 18 percent and earn revenue, about $140 a month, for supplying electricity
services.
PAGE 4 of 61
Table 1: Maintaining Electricity System Waste vs. Investing in Grid Modernization
See Tables 2, 3 and 6 for information on how these numbers were derived.
The paper begins with an introduction to the need for grid modernization and the work the Perfect
Power Institute has done to understand the costs and benefits. Section 2 goes into further detail
of what grid modernization is and characteristics of successful implementation. Section 3
discusses the existing system and associated waste, how these sunk costs are imbedded in the
customer bill and finally how Naperville was able to reverse this dynamic and implement
successful grid modernization. Section 4 introduces key policy and process changes that are
necessary for customers to realize the full benefits of grid modernization and provides specific
performance outcomes that are required to realize the benefits projections. Section 5 estimates
the investment costs necessary to modernize the grid and Section 6 estimates the potential
benefits. The report concludes with Section 7 that provides the impetus for change and
improvement of the electricity grid.
1.1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Perfect Power Institute™, working with industry stakeholders, has researched smart grid
performance measures and outcomes in the process of creating the Perfect Power Seal of
Approval™. This includes exploring prototypes that exceed the outcomes presented in this paper
and researching policy best practices that maximize customer benefits.
The Institute’s work and primary references include:

The Illinois Electricity System Guiding Principles and Policy Framework report,
which records five years of collaboration, research and outreach into consumer needs
and policy reform best practices. This includes the results of a Constitutional Convention
with a broad set of stakeholders to identify policy reforms that would lead to a more
consumer responsive electricity system.

The Perfect Power Seal of Approval is the nation’s first comprehensive, consumercentric, data-driven system for evaluating power system performance. It has been
developed by the independent nonprofit Galvin Electricity Initiative along with strategic
partner Underwriters Laboratories and a team of industry experts.
PAGE 5 of 61

Perfect Power at IIT is a demonstration that cost-effective power can be delivered to the
consumer precisely as the consumer requires it, without failure and without increasing
costs. The Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) collaborated with the Galvin Electricity
Initiative, S&C Electric Company, Endurant Energy and Commonwealth Edison to design
a Perfect Power system for the IIT campus in Chicago.

The Naperville Smart Grid Initiative has made efforts to update their power grid to be
more reliable, cost-competitive and efficient, placing themselves as one of FORTUNE
Small Business’ Best Places to Live and Launch in 2008.

Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid — an EPRI report from 2011 with
preliminary estimates of the investment requirements and resultant benefits of a fully
functioning Smart Grid — was utilized to provide input regarding grid modernization scope
and costs.

Energy Information Association Annual Energy Outlook 2011 reports current and
projected energy demand, use and generation capacity, and was used to provide input
regarding consumption and capacity projections.

Maximizing Consumer Value Through Dynamic Pricing: A Suggested Approach for
Regulatory Reform reveals the importance of market-based pricing in maximizing
consumer benefits associated with advanced metering.
The Initiative has used this information to construct the cost benefit analysis in this research
paper. To learn more about the work of the Initiative and its partners visit
www.PerfectPowerInstitute.org.
PAGE 6 of 61
2 What Is Grid Modernization?
2.1
GOALS OF GRID MODERNIZATION
The term “grid modernization” can mean many things, which is part of the problem some have in
grasping the idea. In whatever form grid modernization changes may take, they are all trying to
solve the five biggest problems facing our
aging grid by:
1) Eliminating the significant amount of
waste and lowering costs;
2) Improving safety, reliability and power
quality;
3) Improving energy efficiency;
4) Reducing environmental impacts; and
5) Improving aesthetics.
This requires a comprehensive
transformation of the electricity system rules
and design1 that have remained essentially
the same for the past century. In the photo
Line crew of Niagara Falls Power Co. in 1895.
on the right, you’ll notice the basic grid
Image 79-2142, Electricity & Modern Physics Collection,
design from 1895 looks much as it does
National Museum of American History, Smithsonian
Institution, copyright, Smithsonian Institution
today, while primary modes of transportation
have changed a great deal. The U.S.
Department of Energy has said that our
nation's competitiveness depends upon a modernization of our electricity system.
Strategies to accomplish these five goals can range from relatively straightforward initiatives, like
undergrounding distribution wires, to often-discussed (and just as often misunderstood)
investments in making the grid smarter by expanding the use of communications and information
technologies to boost flexibility and functionality. Because it is so complex and has wide
implications, this paper delves a little deeper into the nature of the smart grid.
2.2
INVESTMENT CATEGORIES
Much like grid modernization, the phrase “smart grid” is a generic term that incorporates many
different technologies and applications. It can be divided into three broad investment or cost
categories:
1) Power supply or procurement improvements, which focus on generation efficiency
improvement and eliminating environmental impacts.
2) Power delivery improvements, which measurably improve safety, reliability, power
quality and efficiency of delivery. In addition, these improvements enable two-way power
1
Kelly, J., Rouse, G., & Nechas, R. (2010, July 15). Illinois Electricity System: Guiding Principles and Policy
Framework. Retrieved from http://www.galvinpower.org/resources/library/reports-white-papers
PAGE 7 of 61
flow, interconnect, pricing markets and direct access to near real-time usage data. To
learn more about best practices for improving grid reliability, review the Galvin Electricity
Initiative white paper titled “Electricity Reliability and Policy Solutions.”2
3) End-use improvements, which result in conservation, cost reduction and the adoption of
cleaner generation sources. This includes encouraging and enabling consumer
investment in technologies that allow them to realize improvement results through choice,
local generation and automation. With advanced metering devices, for example,
customers can receive feedback from the grid that notifies them when electricity prices
are at their highest and lowest. In addition, smart meters and dynamic pricing at the home
can encourage customers to conserve and provide grid ancillary services.
2.3
SUCCESS CHARACTERISTICS
The Galvin Electricity Initiative has developed a comprehensive set of smart grid performance
metrics 3 and completed several prototypes of advanced smart grids.4 The Initiative has also
completed Perfect Power prototypes and case studies that provide insight into effective and
innovative smart grid design approaches.5 These efforts identified several key characteristics of
effective smart grid programs and projects. Most important, early prototypes reveal that
investment in the local distribution system provides the greatest impact on performance.
Below are some of the key characteristics of these programs and projects:
2
3
4
5
6

Achieving specific, measurable goals6 — Effective smart grid investment projects
begin with measurable performance goals or outcomes, such as average interruption
duration and frequency reduction.

Self-healing infrastructure — The grid rapidly detects, analyzes, responds to and
resolves problems, faults or attacks. This can be accomplished through integration of
redundancy, substation automation and smart sectionalizing switches.

Empowering and engaging the consumer — The grid should have the ability to
accommodate dynamic pricing, ancillary services from consumers, and net metering of
local clean generation.

Defending against attack — The grid should be resilient to and be able to mitigate
physical and cyber-attacks. This includes effective cyber security and protecting exposed
components as well as moving critical system components underground.
Rouse, G., & Kelly, J. (2011, February). Electric Reliability: Problems, Progress, and Policy Solutions. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/resources/library/reports-white-papers
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011). Perfect Power Seal of Approval. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/sealofapproval
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2007). Perfect Power prototype design reports for the Illinois Institute of Technology and
the Mesa del Sol development. Retrieved from http://galvinpower.org/projects/perfect-power-illinois-institutetechnology
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2007). Perfect Power prototype design reports for the Illinois Institute of Technology and
the Mesa del Sol development and Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2010, April). Naperville Case Study. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/galvin-conducts-naperville-smart-grid-initiative-case-study
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011). Perfect Power Seal of Approval. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/sealofapproval
PAGE 8 of 61

Providing power quality needed by 21st century users — The grid should provide
power reliability and quality consistent with consumer and industry needs.

Accommodating a wide variety of supply and demand — The grid should
accommodate a variety of local generation resources (storage, solar and gas-fired
generation) and demand-side resources (demand response, load management and enduse efficiency programs).

Enabling mature electricity markets — The grid should allow for and be supported
where practical by competitive markets that engage consumers in ancillary services.
The realization of grid modernization would require a fundamental change from the electric power
industry’s traditional focus on supply-side infrastructure that ends at the meter to one that
includes more fully the numerous individualized service and supply opportunities on the demand
side. Such a comprehensive change in the electric power industry will require a great deal of
investment. The cost of modernizing the grid is often cited as a reason for not undertaking the
project, but this reasoning does not factor in the value of the potential benefits or the elimination
of inefficiency and waste that is part of the current system.
PAGE 9 of 61
3 Electricity System Waste
The U.S. electricity system is wasting significant amounts of energy and capital while producing
unacceptable amounts of harmful emissions. Waste in the electric sector is costing America
roughly a half trillion dollars each year in five areas (see Table 2 on page 11):
1) Building Conservation — Today’s building materials are relatively inefficient, resulting in
high energy loss. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) estimated that building
owners could save up to 30 percent through conservation.7 Assuming that 50 percent
improvement in residential and commercial building efficiency is the theoretical limit, the
total waste is $150 billion annually.8
2) Capacity Expansion — Even though only about 50 percent of the current ~1,000 GW of
generation and delivery system is utilized, additional capacity is projected to keep up with
growth in peak demand — demand that continues to grow due to the lack of consumer
response to daily swings in power demand. As a result, about 100 GW of new generation
and delivery is called for and will be required to meet increasing peak demand. This is
about 600 GW in unutilized capacity, representing waste of about $60 billion, assuming
generation and delivery costs of approximately $3,700 per kW.
3) Generation and Distribution Energy Efficiency — Because fossil fuel has been
relatively inexpensive to process, large power plants are not built to operate as efficiently
as is technically feasible, and they waste about two-thirds of the fuel they consume.9 The
power plants and lines that generate and carry power to our cities and towns have to send
a large quantity of electricity a long way, losing thermal energy to the surrounding air and
wasting up to another 7 percent of the electricity delivered.10 This equates to about 25
quadrillion BTU or $70 billion annually at $3/mmBTU in wasted fuel.
4) Power Reliability and Quality — Our power lines are out in the open where they fall
prey to weather, animals and accidents. When the power lines are damaged, utilities,
consumers and businesses pay for the resulting repairs and economic losses. Electricity
interruptions also cause injuries and deaths, resulting from lost power to life-safety
equipment, heating and cooling, as well as causing fires and electrocutions. Consumer
impacts include flooded basements due to inoperable sump pumps, spoiled food and
increased cost of goods due to business downtime and lost productivity. The total
estimated annual cost is about $150 billion annually.11
5) Environmental Impacts — The electric power sector is a major contributor to carbon,
sulfur, mercury and other hazardous emissions. The full human health and environmental
7
8
9
Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., & Biermayer, P. (2008). U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential,
LBNL-1096E. Berkeley: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
From the Annual Energy Outlook 2010, total electricity usage for residential and commercial buildings totaled 2,700
billion kWh, assuming 40 percent of the electricity is wasted.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Tables A1
‒ A20.
10
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, p.10.
11
LaCammare, K. H., & Eto, J. H. (2004). Understanding the Cost of Power Interruptions to U.S. Electricity
Consumers, LBNL 55718. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Analysis. Berkeley:
University of California Berkeley.
PAGE 10 of 61
consequences of this is not known, but it is certainly a strain on the U.S. economy and
health care system. In terms of just carbon, sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions, the costs
are estimated at about $70 billion annually (see Section 6.3.2).
Table 2: Electricity System Waste Summary (Direct and Indirect)
WASTE
CATEGORY
IMPACT
WASTE $,
BILLIONS
RECOVERABLE
$, BILLIONS
(SECTION 6)
12
METRIC EXAMPLES
Building
conservation
Potential direct
consumer savings
~150
~90
Energy Star Rating
Capacity
expansion
Wasted capital that
can be avoided
~60
~24
System capacity factor*
System demand factor**
Generation and
distribution energy
efficiency
Potential direct
consumer savings
~70
~36
Source Energy Intensity***
Power reliability
and quality
Potential indirect
consumer savings
~150
~75
Interruption duration and
frequency index and power
quality measures
Environmental
impacts
Potential indirect
consumer savings
~70
~20
Carbon, sulfur, nitrogen oxide
intensities
~245
To put this in perspective, we
divided the total waste by the
total U.S. consumption, which
13
equates to 13 cents/kWh
Total Cost
~500
*System capacity factor = the total system-delivered MWh divided by the system peak capacity in MWh times 8,760
hours.
**System demand factor = the total system-delivered MWh divided by the peak summer demand corrected for heating
degree day (HDD) times 8,760 hours.
*** Energy Star created the source energy intensity as a means to measure the overall efficiency of delivered electricity,
which equals total fossil fuel consumed in mmBTU divided by the delivered MWh of electricity.
Source: Galvin Electricity Initiative (2011). Perfect Power Seal of Approval and U.S. Department of Energy Annual
Energy Outlook 2010. Note: This table is a summary of estimated total electricity system waste for the selected waste
categories. The savings discussed herein reflect recovery of a portion of these savings as a result of electricity system
investments and rule changes that enable or produce specific system improvements. The basis for these estimates is
provided in Section 6.0. The building efficiency savings do not include structural efficiency savings, only energy savings
from automation and behavioral changes due to new knowledge.
3.1
WHO PAYS FOR SYSTEM WASTE?
The most common argument against grid modernization is that upgrading the grid would be too
expensive. While consumers acknowledge the need for improvement, most will not embrace
upgrades to a system they can live with the way it is. They don’t realize that they are already
paying for what is wrong with the system, and that improvement can reduce these costs.
12
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011). Perfect Power Seal of Approval. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/sealofapproval
13
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, estimates
total annual electricity usage at 3,730 billion kWh and residential/commercial annual usage at 2,700 billion kWh.
PAGE 11 of 61
Grid modernization, done right, can eliminate waste, increase the efficiency of operations and
shift spending to more impactful improvements. Of course, these improvements do cost money.
Think of it as a one-time payment to the plumber to fix the leaky faucet that is driving up your
water bill. If you don’t pay to have it fixed now, you will be paying in drips until you do.
Consumers are currently paying utilities to manage system operation and performance through
distribution charges. These distribution charges are reviewed every few years with regulators to
ensure that they are accurate. In order to guarantee the utility will not go out of business and
leave consumers without power, they add a modest guaranteed profit and let the utility charge
that much for electricity for the next rate period.
The current regulatory environment does not account for the indirect or direct costs of outages,
thereby limiting investment that could eliminate waste associated with power interruptions. As a
result, the waste or consumer costs caused by interruptions cannot be used to justify investment.
This includes: 1) injuries and deaths, 2) recovery and repair costs, separate from maintenance or
operations costs, and 3) economic losses to families and businesses when the power fails.
To further exacerbate the situation, a significant portion of the existing customer’s delivery
charge is invested in system expansion and higher voltage system improvements, even though
LBNL reported that the majority of power interruptions are not caused by the transmission or
area-wide high-voltage distribution system but are instead due to events that affect the local lowvoltage distribution system.14 Essentially investments are being diverted from improvements that
would reduce interruptions to support new customers. For example, PEPCo in response to
widespread power interruptions, announced a Comprehensive Reliability Enhancement Plan15
that allocated 60 percent of the targeted $320 million in improvement spending to system
expansion.
As a result, consumers can benefit from a new regulatory compact that:

Enables consumers and utilities to track waste and share in savings from investment that
eliminates both direct and indirect waste.

Assigns the cost of system expansion to new load, thereby allowing utilities to focus
limited investment spending on the existing grid.
3.2
NAPERVILLE — ELIMINATING WASTE AND TARGETING INVESTMENT
Some industry stakeholders have argued that higher rates are required to improve the reliability
of electricity service. In the case of Naperville, Ill., dramatic improvements in system reliability
were achieved without raising rates (See Appendix A). Naperville turned this dynamic by: 1)
shifting spending to the local grid, 2) making new development pay for system expansion, 3)
moving the system underground to eliminate the continuous waste associated with storm
recovery, and 4) creating isolation capability to limit storm impacts and restoration costs. The
14
Illinois Commerce Commission. (2010). Electric Reliability Reports. Retrieved from
http://www.icc.illinois.gov/electricity/electricreliability.aspx.
15
Pepco. (2010). Pepco Unveils Reliability Enhancement Plan for the District of Columbia. Retrieved from
http://www.pepco.com/welcome/news/releases/archives/2010/article.aspx?cid=1552
PAGE 12 of 61
result was a dramatic improvement in reliability that also reduced system waste along with
operation and maintenance costs that were ultimately used to pay for investments.
This was accomplished by moving the system underground, building in redundant supply to
buildings, automating switches to re-route power in the case of a failure and communications with
all devices. A benefit of smart power technology is having the ability to acquire and access data
detailing how the distribution system is functioning. In order for Naperville to capitalize on this
advantage, they built a centralized location for all of the incoming data to be directed, called the
Electric Service Center. From the Center’s control room, also known as the “smart grid brain,” a
real-time data acquisition system called System Control & Data Acquisition (SCADA) gathered
and processed critical data.
SCADA is crucial for real-time operation and requires reliable, two-way communication with the
substations. Monitoring SCADA from the Electric Service Center’s controls allowed the Naperville
team to forecast and plan their system better, fix problems using controls from the Center’s
control room, as well as dispatch people to address problems quicker. Thus, SCADA became the
backbone of Naperville’s power system, and the first step toward improving their grid.
In addition, Naperville recognized that collected distribution monies are sometimes siphoned
away from local reliability improvements for system expansion and new development while
system inefficiency and recurring repairs continue. They took a bold step, charging new
customers a temporary special rate, or rider, that covered the cost of system expansion to serve
new customers. This allowed Naperville to apply rates collected from existing customers to the
smart grid project.
PAGE 13 of 61
4 Investment and Benefit Prerequisites
Research into grid modernization benefits revealed the need to empower and value consumers in
order to produce the benefits estimated herein. These benefits depend, naturally, upon grid
modernization investments producing specific measurable improvements. As such, the benefits
outlined in this research paper depend on market reforms, changes in the system processes and
achieving specific, measurable outcomes.
The benefit estimates are based on grid investments producing significant, measurable results:

50 percent or more improvement to interruption duration/frequency and power quality
measures;

15 percent reduction in peak demand-reducing costs associated with system expansion;

50 percent reductions in inefficiency, economic losses and waste, such as time spent
repairing a grid that continuously fails due to recurring lightning, ice and wind storms, as
well as indirect costs associated with power interruptions and poor power quality;

50 percent improvement in generation efficiency and environmental performance.
Examples include source energy intensity (mmBTU consumed per MWh delivered),
carbon intensity (lbs. of CO2 equivalent emitted/MWh delivered) and solid waste landfilled
(percent solid wastes recycled); and

Measurable improvement in distribution system efficiency — MWh delivered to customer
meters/MWh entering the system.
The benefit estimates assume the following market reforms:


Empower, value and engage consumers through choice, price transparency, direct
access to real-time usage data, net meterin, and payments for ancillary services. This
includes providing consumers:
–
Open markets for retail electricity management services and consumer choice
regarding their generation supplier. This provides consumers with access to cleaner
and more efficient generation.
–
Price transparency and access to a wide array of dynamic pricing options enabled by
advanced metering. This includes consumer access to real-time and time-of-use
hourly pricing, which provides additional savings from price arbitrage.
–
Direct, secure access to real-time usage data enabled by advanced metering. This
enables innovative applications and home automation to be coordinated with demand
in real time.
–
Ability to cost-effectively net meter and interconnect local generation and receive full
and fair value through feed-in tariffs for the electricity supplied. This includes both the
physical and virtual aggregation of customer meters.
–
Payments for supplying ancillary services provided by the Independent System
Operator. This includes providing access to day-ahead hourly markets and payments
for demand response, capacity service and other ancillary services.
Empower and engage local governments as partners in electricity system improvements.
This includes local improvement plans; assurance that a portion of the collected rates are
PAGE 14 of 61
spent locally; the ability to aggregate residents for community procurement; long-term, onbill financing for local government-directed system improvements; and the authority to
establish energy districts or microgrids.
The creation of a wider array of dynamic price signals and ancillary service payments will also
encourage investment by entrepreneurial innovators as they work to provide technology and
software solutions that enable consumers to realize the full potential of these investments and
benefits.
Finally, grid modernization benefit estimates assume a new regulatory compact that rewards
utilities and system operators for eliminating waste and improving measurable performance
outcomes. This new regulatory compact includes implementing rules that maximize the value of
grid investments by:

Requiring that new customers pay their own way through a special rider that is applied
over a limited period;

Requiring greater detail on spending by voltage level and substation in: 1) operations and
maintenance, 2) improvement spending, 3) repair cost, and 4) interruption impacts. These
proposed new cost codes would not replace the two main cost codes currently used by
utilities — capital and expense — but would be new sub-cost categories;

Establishing a rider that enables large customers and local governments to invest in grid
improvements or higher levels of reliability or power quality than are required by legislated
standards;

Requiring that system operators work with and coordinate grid improvements with local
governments through specific local grid improvement plans;

Establishing priorities for investment where vulnerable customers and poor-performing
sections of the grid are improved first; and

Leveraging the use of proven Six Sigma quality methods that focus on systems analysis
to reveal small changes that have a large impact on performance, including investing in
improvements that eliminate waste.
PAGE 15 of 61
5 Investment Costs of Grid Modernization
This section outlines the investment opportunities and estimated costs for producing measurable
improvements in system performance. The average estimated cost for the proposed electricity
system upgrades is $400/household. This includes:

Clean power supply investments in wind, combined cycle natural gas and other cleaner or
renewable generation;

Power delivery investments that focus on reliability and power quality, as well as enabling
two-way power flow, interconnect, ancillary services and pricing markets; and

End-use investments in the automation of home loads and intelligent software that
produce conservation savings and enable consumers to generate revenue from providing
ancillary services, as well as local clean distributed generation — leveraging buildings as
a grid resource.
Table 3: Estimated Annual Grid Modernization Costs* per Residential Household
SECTION
TECHNOLOGY
Clean Power Supply Investment
Power Delivery Investment
ESTIMATED COST
PER HOUSEHOLD,
$/YEAR
~$80
~$150
5.2.1
Transmission and Area Distribution
$12
5.2.2
Local Distribution System or Microgrid
Improvements**
$37
5.2.2.1
Local Substation Automation
$25
5.2.2.2
Circuit Loops with Smart Switches
$25
5.2.2.3
Undergrounding Local Cables
$50
End-Use Investment
~$165
5.3.1
Local Clean Power Supply
$46
5.3.2
Smart Meters
$20
5.3.3
Home Automation
Approximate Annual Cost
$100
~$400 / year
Source: llinois Institute of Technology. (2010). Perfect Power at IIT and Gellings, C. (2011). Estimating the
Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of of the Investment Requirements and the
Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute.
*This costs represent capital cost amortized over a 15-year period.
**System investment categories based on EPRI report referenced above.
PAGE 16 of 61
We based these estimates of grid modernization costs on data from the smart grid demonstration
project, Perfect Power at IIT,16 and a 2011 EPRI report on smart grid cost/benefit.17 Home
automation and smart meter costs are also based on general industry information and
discussions with SmartLabs,18 which shared information from their demonstration projects and
Web-based automation store.
Energy efficiency costs and savings were assumed to be equal for the purpose of this evaluation
and were therefore excluded.
5.1
CLEAN POWER SUPPLY INVESTMENT
Consumers are seeking to dramatically reduce the environmental impacts of generating
electricity. This includes procuring more efficient and cleaner generation such as wind and highefficiency, combined cycle, natural gas-fired generation, as well as solar photovoltaic (PV) and
electricity storage.
It is anticipated that consumers, aggregators and state utility commissions will engage in
performance-based, long-term contracts to procure an assumed 100 GW of cleaner generation
that will displace older, inefficient coal, oil and natural gas generation at a cost of $3,000/KW or
$300 billion nationwide, assuming that all of this cost is borne by the commercial and residential
sectors. Based on the EPRI distribution of cost per customer class, the residential sector would
bear about 40 percent of this cost and, amortized over 15 years, the annual cost to consumers
would be $80 per household.
This new generation would complement the existing idle natural gas generation fleet of 300 GW,
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2010.
The new generation discussed above, combined with idle existing natural-gas fired generation,
should be sufficient to displace older, less efficient coal, oil and natural gas generation. This
would allow the nation to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and increase generation
efficiency.
5.2
POWER DELIVERY INVESTMENT
The electricity system can be transformed to significantly improve reliability, power quality and to
accommodate local two-way power flow to facilitate local clean generation and customer
price/demand response. LBNL reported that the bulk of power interruptions are caused by
problems in the local distribution system. As a result, a larger portion of investment will be
required at the local distribution system (local substations and circuits to customers).
The cost analysis provided herein indicates that, for a large utility, about 90 percent of the smart
grid spending should be allocated to the local distribution system. Innovative Perfect Power
designs such as Naperville, Ill., and the IIT (see Appendices A and B) reveal that interruptions
could be reduced significantly by focusing on local distribution systems, including:
16
17
18
Illinois Institute of Technology. (2010). Perfect Power at IIT. Retrieved from http://www.iit.edu/perfect_power
Gellings, C. (2011). Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of the Investment
Requirements and the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research
Institute.
SmartLabs Inc. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.smartlabsinc.com/index.html
PAGE 17 of 61
1) The deployment of innovative technologies that allow substations to automatically isolate
faults, restore service and re-route power. Today, utilities rely on manual fuses ⎯ like the
old ones in homes ⎯ that open on a fault and must wait for utility crews to install a new
one. Instead of everyone being served by the substation and thousands of residents
losing power, with smart switches only a few hundred are out of service, and power to the
rest of the residents is automatically restored;
2) The use of circuit looping with smart switches dispersed along looped circuits. Looping
provides residents with power from two directions and smart switches sense and isolate
faults to a very small area (i.e., a few homes). Instead of entire neighborhoods being in
the dark due to a tree falling on a line, only a few customers are impacted;
3) Undergrounding cables to dramatically improve reliability and power quality, reduce repair
costs, reduce tree-trimming costs and improve esthetics. Today’s electricity system, for
the most part, is exposed on overhead lines and poles. Very often when a storm rolls
through a city, the power is knocked out. The typical response is to cut down all of the
trees that threaten the power lines. Unfortunately, as cities try to become greener, they
are planting more trees, resulting in a futile cycle of residents planting trees and utilities
cutting them down. It is time for the electricity sector to invent more economical ways of
moving the grid underground or to ground level;
4) The optimization of tap settings that reduce transformer efficiency losses. The savings
can be reinvested into reliability or advanced meter upgrades; and
5) Advanced software, automation and control systems that can coordinate market pricing
with end-use devices and utility system conditions to optimize reliability, power quality,
efficiency and asset utilization. This network of technology is sometimes referred to as a
master controller.
5.2.1 Transmission and Area Distribution
In a 2011 smart grid cost benefit report,19 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) identified
the following investment categories and costs for the transmission and area substation systems.
They also allocated about 40 percent of these costs to the residential sector. The total nationwide
cost is $55 billion or $12 per residential customer, based on amortizing the costs over 15 years.
19
Gellings, C. (2011). Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of the Investment
Requirements and the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research
Institute.
PAGE 18 of 61
Table 4: Transmission and Area Distribution Investments
INVESTMENT
CATEGORY
Dynamic
thermal circuit
rating
Sensors
Short circuit
current limiters
Storage
AVERAGE
ESTIMATED COST,
MILLIONS $
COMMENT
$170
Dynamic ratings increase the capacity of existing
transmission lines by providing real-time transmission
line ratings to system operators. This is accomplished by
monitoring actual conductor tension and environmental
factors.
$2,250
Smart sensors in transmission corridors and substations
will be able to monitor conditions in real time. That
capability has many applications including safety,
maintenance, asset management and risk assessment.
$580
This technology limits the magnitude of high-level fault
currents to a level that can be managed by the
distribution infrastructure’s existing protection systems.
$0
The initiative removed this cost that will be borne by the
private sector and paid for through market savings, not
as an additional cost, $8 billion.
$4,600
“Flexible transmission” describes a wide range of
technologies designed to give greater control over the
transmission system in terms of power flow control, load
sharing and many other possibilities.
PMU
$156
Phasor measurement units (PMU) draw in data about
the transmission system’s performance (such as voltage
and current) at a speed of 30 times per second. These
real-time measurements will allow for comprehensive
monitoring and management of the electric system.
Communications
to substations
$700
With the multitude of new evaluative technologies along
the electric grid, there will have to be an upgrade to the
information infrastructure leading to the substation to
allow for the transmission of this data.
Communications
for substations
$2,900
As the amount of data about the operations and
performance of the electric system increases
exponentially, substations will also need to be upgraded
to process and use this information.
Relays and
sensors IED
$6,050
Intelligent electronic devices (IED) refer to a number of
technologies that are used to monitor and control
various aspects of the grid, such as transformers and
circuit breakers.
Cyber security
$3,700
Though the major benefits of a smart grid include
automation, information collecting and widespread
control, these features also make the system ripe for
cyber attacks. Naturally, an enhanced method of
security would be a must.
Flexible
transmission
PAGE 19 of 61
INVESTMENT
CATEGORY
Back office
enterprise
software
ISO upgrades
Maintenance
increase
TOTAL
AVERAGE
ESTIMATED COST,
MILLIONS $
COMMENT
$32,000
As with many other areas of the electric system, the
increased amount of information and operations of a
smart grid would require updates to the software utilities
use to manage their operations.
$2,400
Just as utilities will need to upgrade their computers and
communication devices to accommodate the added
functionality of a smart gird, independent system
operators (ISO) will also need to update their
infrastructure.
$0
The initiative removed this cost based on an assumption
that this would be offset by operational savings from
automation, $15 billion
$55,506
This equates to about $12 per residential customer per
year.
Source: Gellings, C. (2011). Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of of the
Investment Requirements and the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid.
5.2.2 Local Distribution System or Microgrid Improvements
EPRI identified the investment categories and costs outlined in Table 5 for the local distribution
systems. Based on Perfect Power prototyping done by the Galvin Electricity Initiative, additional
costs were identified associated with local substation automation, circuit looping, smart switches,
and moving circuits underground/to ground level. These additional cost estimates are based on
actual cost data from the IIT Perfect Power prototype.20 EPRI also allocated about 40 percent of
these costs to the residential sector. The total nationwide cost is estimated to be about $630
billion, or $150 per residential customer, based on amortizing the costs over 15 years.
Table 5: Distribution Improvement Costs
INVESTMENT
CATEGORY
AVERAGE
ESTIMATED COST,
MILLIONS $
COMMENTS
EPRI Local Distribution Automation and Communications Costs
Communications
$4,400
Communications allow the updated components of the
smart grid to pass information back and forth, thus enabling
the true potential of the system.
Current limiters
$2,300
Advanced current limiters can reduce the number of
interruptions while at the same time securing a more steady
and reliable flow of power.
Volt/Var control
$40,500
20
Voltage variation control is crucial for reducing loss and
Illinois Institute of Technology. (2010). Perfect Power at IIT. Retrieved from http://www.iit.edu/perfect_power
PAGE 20 of 61
INVESTMENT
CATEGORY
AVERAGE
ESTIMATED COST,
MILLIONS $
COMMENTS
power quality events.
Remote control
switch
$1,500
Remote control switches decentralize the manipulation of
key components of the grid, cutting down on interruptions
and increasing recovery time.
Direct load
control
$1,800
Direct load control would enable the utilities to decrease
non-essential electrical demand during peak hours to avoid
the risk of overloading the system.
ElectriNet
controller
$3,500
The ElectriNet controller allows the operator to coordinate
electrical needs to work in concert with the smart grid for
maximum efficiency and cost savings.
Operations and
maintenance
EPRI Subtotal
$0
EPRI estimated an additional $8 billion in maintenance
costs, which were assumed to be offset by operational and
maintenance savings.
~$54,000
This equates to about $12 per residential customer per year.
EPRI Local Smart Switch Costs
Head-end
recloser
$16,000
Intelligent head-end reclosers allow for a more flexible,
efficient power system by enabling instantaneous and timeovercurrent protection, better coordination with other
devices and the ability for self-diagnosis. Assumed 70
percent penetration on circuits at a cost of $50,000 each.
Smart switch
$79,000
Smart switches can automatically adjust to isolate problems
on the grid and instantly react with other smart technologies
to reconfigure and adapt to changing needs. Assumed 55
percent penetration on circuits at a cost of $310,000 each.
Intelligent
recloser
$14,500
Like many automated components of the smart grid,
intelligent reclosers can seal off problems before they can
spread system-wide and cause larger interruptions.
Assumed 25 percent penetration on circuits at a cost of
$125,000 each.
EPRI Subtotal
~$109,500
This equates to about $25 per residential customer per year.
IIT Prototype Improvements (See Sections 5.2.2.1 to 5.2.2.3)
Substation
automation
$116,000
This assumes $2,000,000 per substation based on the IIT
prototype actual costs. This equates to about $25 per
residential customer per year.
Looping
$46,500
EPRI estimated that there were 464,200 circuits nationwide
at an estimated average cost of $100,000 to connect
circuits in a looping or redundant configuration. This
equates to about $10 per residential customer per year.
Smart switches
$70,000
This assumes adding two additional switches per circuit
($75,000 each) to the already budgeted reclosers and
smart switch costs estimated by EPRI. This equates to
about $15 per residential customer per year.
PAGE 21 of 61
INVESTMENT
CATEGORY
AVERAGE
ESTIMATED COST,
MILLIONS $
COMMENTS
Underground
cables
$232,000
This assumes $1 million per circuit and undergrounding half
of the total estimated circuits. This equates to about $50
per residential customer per year.
IIT Subtotal
~$464,000
This equates to about $25 per residential customer per year.
Total
~$630,000
This equates to about $150 per residential customer per year.
Source: Illinois Institute of Technology. (2010). Perfect Power at IIT.
5.2.2.1 Local Substation Automation
This category includes the costs for automated breakers and switches in the substation so that
the substation bus can be supplied power from multiple feeds. The cost for substation automation
is estimated at $2 million per substation. EPRI estimates about 58,000 substations total, or a cost
of $25 per resident per year.
5.2.2.2 Circuit Loops with Smart Switches
Looping provides residents with power from two directions while sectionalizing smart switches
sense and isolate faults to a smaller set of customers, reducing interruptions and outage
duration. Costs in this category include the costs for additional conductors required to build loops
out of radial feeds. It is assumed that some, but not all, existing conductors would have to be
replaced. The exact cost will depend on the ratings and projected loads on the existing
conductors.
The following assumptions were used to estimate additional costs for:

Two additional intelligent reclosers or smart switches for each circuit at a cost of $75,000
for each of the estimated 460,000 circuits, or $15 per resident per year; and

An estimated $100,000 per loop with an estimated 230,000 loops or $10 per resident per
year (one for every two circuits).
5.2.2.3 Undergrounding Local Cables (Lower Voltage)
Some local governments are demanding that portions, if not all, of the local grid be moved
underground and have offered to help pay for and coordinate planned undergrounding with other
major infrastructure projects (e.g., streets, sewer, water and telecom). Undergrounding cables or
moving cables to ground level can dramatically improve reliability, improve power quality, lower
repair costs and improve aesthetics. Today’s electrical system, for the most part, is exposed on
overhead lines and poles, making the system very vulnerable to interruptions during a storm.
Trimming or cutting down the trees that interfere with power lines is at odds with most residents’
goals of a greener, more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood.
While undergrounding cables makes practical sense, cost is cited as an issue. However, as
technology and methods for undergrounding improve, this objection diminishes. Trenchless
technology, lower repair costs and improved reliability all must be factored in when determining
the true rate of return of undergrounding. The costs will drop even further when this work is
coordinated with other municipal sewer and street projects. Some cities are offering to install
PAGE 22 of 61
conduits with every major infrastructure project for use by the utility in the future. The cost for
undergrounding cables is estimated at $1,000,000 per local circuit for 50 percent of the EPRIestimated 460,000 circuits. Based on a 15-year rollout, this would cost each household about
$50 per resident per year.
Ultimately, the electricity industry and the consumers it serves must decide if the electricity
system will look the same in 100 years — exposed, unsightly and vulnerable. One way to look at
this issue is to consider that our cities will be here for another 200 plus years. How much cable
would need to be buried each year to move most of the system underground over 200 years?
The industry is also at an inflection point, as tens of thousands of pole-mounted, smartsectionalizing switches are planned that will make it even more costly to move the system to the
ground level.
5.3
END-USE INVESTMENT
Consumers and innovators will respond to dynamic pricing signals, ancillary service payments
and net metering for fair value and the new ability to easily interconnect and participate in
electricity markets. This includes the introduction of a suite of new technology and software
solutions. The result will be investment by consumers in technology and software that creates
energy savings and generates revenue, including through ancillary services. In the new world of
“apps” and “intelligent software,” it is likely that consumers will not have to take action to produce
savings. Instead, advanced software will learn and adjust home operations to automatically
minimize costs, energy use and associated emissions.
5.3.1 Local Clean Power Supply — Distributed Energy
Part of the grid modernization plan would include consumer and utility investment into local clean
energy resources such as solar, biogas, electricity storage and gas-fired, distributed generation
for backup power, both to avoid higher peak power costs and to provide ancillary services. This
cost estimate includes 1 MW of distributed generation per substation at an average cost of
$3,000/kW. EPRI estimated a total of 58,000 substations nationwide. The total cost would be
about $46 per household annually over a 15-year period, assuming residential consumers bear
50 percent of the cost.
5.3.2 Smart Meters
Utilities may invest in smart meters if approved by the regulator. Otherwise, consumers may
invest in smart meters supplied by entrepreneurs as part of a services solution that enables
savings from participating in market pricing and conservation. EPRI estimated the cost of
residential smart meters and support infrastructure at about $150 per residential customer. The
total cost if financed over an assumed life of eight years is $20 per household.
5.3.3 Home Automation
A basic home-automation package is designed for conservation by targeting the more obvious,
large loads in the home. This package would include programmable and controllable
thermostats, Web-enabled energy management tools, controllers for switching off large loads,
controllable dimmable lighting and intelligent apps or software that will automate the optimization
of energy use and cost. The estimated cost is $800 per home for half of the meters in the subject
area. The annual cost to consumers based on an assumed life of eight years is about $100 per
household.
PAGE 23 of 61
6 Benefits of Grid Modernization
This section estimates the potential benefits of modernizing the grid. The benefits are divided into
three distinct categories: 1) direct bill savings, 2) indirect savings, and 3) future revenue
potential. The total benefit is estimated at about $1,200 per year for a typical use household.
While these projected savings are almost equivalent to the average annual bill of $1,200 (see
Table 6), there is no implication that electricity will be free; the true potential of a modernized grid
extends beyond the utility bill as indirect savings, avoided future rate increases and future
revenue potential. Additionally, the benefits on public health, safety and security are significant
and if effectively quantified would increase the benefits even more. Table 6 summarizes benefit
categories and estimated potential annual cost savings from grid modernization.
Table 6: Summary of Estimated Annual Savings per Residential Household
SECTION
ANNUAL
SAVINGS/YR.
CATEGORY
6.1
Direct bill savings (including avoided rate increases)
$585
6.1.1
Electricity consumption savings
$125
6.1.2
Dynamic pricing, time-of-use savings and shifting peak demand
$110
6.1.3
Avoided new capacity costs
$130
6.1.4
Improved generation efficiencies
$200
6.1.5
Reduced transmission and distribution losses
6.2
Indirect savings
$400
6.2.1
Improved reliability and power quality
$400
6.3
Future revenue potential
$250
6.3.1
Revenue for providing electricity and ancillary services
$140
6.3.2
Emission reduction credits
$110
TOTAL BENEFIT
6.4
Public health, safety and homeland security
$20
$1,200
Significant
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
Note: The savings shown will be utilized to offset investment in system improvements,
which means that consumers may not see all or most of these savings until the investments
are paid off. Furthermore, some of the savings are indirect costs, which will not be reflected
on the customer bill. Finally, these savings are based on specific smart grid investments
that produce measurable improvements in performance, as well as market reforms that
empower and value customer and local government investment and action (see Section 4). PAGE 24 of 61

Direct bill savings — This category refers to reductions on the monthly bill and avoided
costs or rate increases (for example, the cost of building new generation and distribution
capacity, which is added to existing rates). Many utilities are seeking significant rate
increases that attempt to recoup costs of meeting growing demand.

Indirect savings — This category factors in all of the largely unmeasured impacts of the
current electricity grid, such as consumer and business economic losses that result from
interruptions and power quality fluctuation.

Future revenue potential — For this category, there is the expectation that consumers
could receive income from supplying ancillary services and electricity to the modernized
grid. This also includes increased household income from new jobs generated through
grid investment.
Finally, it is important to set a baseline of electricity spending and consumption in order to
provide a point of comparison. These numbers are used throughout this research paper as the
basis for many calculations.
Table 7: Baseline Electricity Consumption and Spending21,22
Number of U.S. residential customers
125,000,000
Average annual consumption
11,040 kWh
Average cost per kWh
$0.114
Average annual bill
$1,259
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010.) Annual Energy Outlook
2010 and Residential Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State.
6.1
DIRECT BILL SAVINGS
Direct bill savings depend upon
The U.S. electricity system is wasting significant amounts of
the assumed market reforms
energy and capital (see Section 3). These costs are being
and changes to electricity
passed on to consumers. If the system continues to operate
inefficiently, significant increases in peak load will also lead to system rules as described in
rate increases or additional costs that will be added to current Section 4.
bills. The savings discussed herein include both reductions in
current costs as well as reductions in future increases to electricity costs.
The savings will come from:



21
Electricity consumption savings and conservation;
Demand reduction and shifting of time of use;
Avoided new generation and distribution capacity additions;
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
22
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Table 5: Residential Average Monthly
Bill by Census Division, and State. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
PAGE 25 of 61


Choosing more efficient generation sources; and
Reductions in overall system losses resulting from system operational advancements.
Today, consumers have no idea that the real cost of electricity generation during peak periods
can exceed $200/MWh while costing almost nothing during the night.23 Most consumers across
the country pay the same price for electricity at all times throughout the day and year. As a result,
there is no price response and peak demand just keeps growing.
Most efforts to date have focused on event-based pricing (e.g., utilities request a few times a
year to reduce usage for a small payment) and not market-based pricing (e.g., hourly and daily
pricing that offers consumers the opportunity for substantial savings). Learn more about event
and market based pricing in the Galvin Electricity Initiative report, “Maximizing Consumer Value
Through Dynamic Pricing: A Suggested Approach for Regulators.”24
A smart grid would convey market-based prices to consumers that reflect the true cost of
generating and delivering that power, including greater use of dynamic pricing and payments for
ancillary services. A smart grid would automatically provide real-time price signals to each
household’s appliances and devices, which can — at the homeowner’s discretion — take steps
to operate when electricity rates are at their lowest.
A smart grid would also pay consumers for supplying ancillary services. For example, a smart
grid would enable and encourage customers to generate their own power through solar or
electricity storage. These technologies not only benefit the consumer, but also take some of the
burden off of the utility by slowing peak demand growth and eliminating the need for investments
in at least a portion of the projected system expansion costs, generation and distribution.
6.1.1 Electricity Consumption Savings
Electricity savings could be realized in part by avoiding consumption through smart home and
appliance technologies, tools and techniques. Once consumers and businesses invest in energysaving technologies, energy savings can be realized. An example is that once a home
automation system is installed, it can be used to turn off lights and change thermostat set points
when the occupants are not at home. One specific example is the application of building
automation equipment for small businesses. Lutron Electronic, Inc. reported 40 to 60 percent
reductions in lighting loads, without adversely affecting productivity.25
Though several studies have been prepared recently on home automation pilots, we have not
found any reports that analyze the permanence of energy savings over an extended period of
time from home automation. Most studies have focused on demand response impacts and
responses to specific events on the grid. We plan to conduct studies based on home automation
pilots, but until results are more definitive, we assume that the long-term savings would be 10
percent of the annual electric bill. This includes savings from automation of lighting, HVAC and a
few major plug loads. The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook indicates that the average national
23
PJM. (2009). Real Time. Retrieved from http://www.pjm-miso.com/markets/energy-market/real-time.html
24
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011, January). Maximizing Consumer Value Through Dynamic Pricing: A Suggested
Approach for Regulators. Retrieved from http://www.galvinpower.org/sites/default/files/DynamicPricing_0110.pdf
25
Lutron. Commercial Solutions: Energy Savings. Retrieved from http://www.lutron.com/Residential-CommercialSolutions/Commercial-Solutions/Pages/CommercialEnergySavings.aspx
PAGE 26 of 61
electricity price is 11.4 cents per kWh. The EIA estimates the average annual electricity
consumption is 11,040 kWh per household.26 The average annual cost savings is estimated to be
$125 per year per household.
It is also important to note that this reduced electricity consumption from the efficiencies of an
updated system will create a new paradigm moving forward. Our calculations will now refer to the
adjusted annual consumption of 9,900 kWh rather than the current data from the EIA (Table 7).
Table 8: Adjusted Average Consumption
Current estimated annual average consumption
10 percent reduction
11,040 kWh
1,104 kWh
Savings per household at 11.4 cents/kWh
Adjusted household usage
~$125
~9,900 kWh
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
6.1.2 Dynamic Pricing, Time-of-Use Savings and Shifting Peak Demand
Energy savings include the potential for reducing peak demand by shifting electricity
consumption from peak periods to off-peak periods. Different rate structures can be used to
incentivize consumers to change consumption use and patterns.27 Examples include time-of-use
rates and various types of dynamic pricing such as real-time pricing. A modern grid strategy
includes providing consumers with dynamic pricing through smart meters, allowing consumers
via their home automation systems to respond to price signals. One report suggested that peak
load could be reduced by 20 percent using these techniques.28
The Initiative performed an analysis for the Illinois Institute of Technology that indicated that the
school could save 25 percent of their electric costs just by switching to real-time from fixed-price,
third-party rates. This was based on IIT’s 2006 electricity procurement contract, 2006 real-time
rates from PJM in ComEd’s territory and IIT’s 2006 hourly electricity consumption. These savings
could be increased for residential customers, as the hourly residential peak consumption is often
later than the grid’s peak, based on the Initiative’s observations of actual in-home hourly
consumption. Assuming a conservative 10 percent reduction of electric costs using the reduced
usage from Section 6.1.1 — or 9,900 kWh — the average household would save about $110 per
year.
26
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Table 5. Residential Average Monthly
Bill by Census Division, and State. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
27
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011, January). Maximizing Consumer Value Through Dynamic Pricing: A Suggested
Approach for Regulators. Retrieved from http://www.galvinpower.org/sites/default/files/DynamicPricing_0110.pdf
28
Hammerstrom, D., Ambrosio, R., Brous, J., Carlon, T., Chassin, D., DeSteese, J., et al. (2007). Pacific Northwest
GridWise Testbed Demonstrations Projects: Part I. Olympia Peninsula Project, PNNL-17167. Richland: Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory.
PAGE 27 of 61
6.1.3 Avoided New Capacity Costs
As mentioned, dynamic and market-based pricing and home automation can provide reductions
in both total electricity consumption and peak demand. This can translate into savings for
consumers in other areas, as these impacts will reduce peak generation, transmission and
distribution capacity requirements. Additionally, smart grid technologies can improve and
optimize transmission and distribution utilization through the expanded use of sensors, controls
and optimization software. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory report on distribution
system costs methodologies states:29
“While generating costs may experience a decline through technological gains in
efficiency, costs of the distribution system have no comparable innovations in the wings.
Average aggregate annual investments of more than $6.4 billion per year were made by
the 124 utilities in our study. This translates to an annual revenue requirement increase
per year on the order of $1 billion to $1.5 trillion. This is a significant cost and deserves
the attention of regulators and the application of appropriate least-cost strategies. To put
this in context, the 124 companies in our study had an average revenue during the 1995‒
1999 period of just more than $134 billion.”
According to the EIA,30 the total U.S. generation capacity is 960 GW.31 Fossil fuel generation is
expected to grow by about 100 GW by the year 2035 to meet growing peak demand. This does
not include power plant retirements. If, through grid modernization, consumers could permanently
reduce total grid peak demand by 10 percent, the U.S. peak demand could be reduced by about
100 GW.32 This means that consumer empowerment could virtually eliminate the need for new
fossil fuel capacity. The avoided total generation and distribution capacity cost estimate is
$130/customer/year based on the assumptions and results shown in Tables 9 and 10.
6.1.3.1 Avoided New Generation Capacity Costs
We estimated the capacity savings of avoided fossil fuel generation, based on a total 10 percent
reduction in system peak demand, or 100 GW. If a new power plant costs $2,200/kW or and
financing costs about 5 percent over 30 years, savings would equal about $14 billion annually or
$80 per average U.S. household, assuming 50 percent of the commercial and industrial savings
are passed on to consumers.
29
Shirley, W., Cowart, R., Sedano, R., Weston, F. W., Harrington, C., & Moskovitz, D. (2001). Distribution System Cost
Methodologies for Distributed Generation, NREL/SR-560-32500. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gardiner:
The Regulatory Assistance Project.
30
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2011). Annual Energy Outlook 2011, Table A9.
31
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Existing Generating Units in the United
States by State, Company and Plant 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/capacity.html
32
This estimate assumes that the residential portion of peak capacity is proportional to the ratio of residential
consumption over total U.S. consumption. Total U.S. consumption was assumed to be 3,713 GWh and residential
consumption was assumed to be 1,392 GWh based on U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information
Administration, Table 5.1: Retail Sales of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector, 1996 through
August 2010, ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/02261011.pdf
PAGE 28 of 61
Table 9: Estimate of Avoided New Generation Capacity Costs
ASSUMPTIONS
Avoided capacity, GW
100
New plant cost, $/kW
$2,200
Interest rate
5%
Term, years
30
RESULTS
Total cost
$220,000,000,000
Annual cost
$14,300,000,000
Avoided generation capacity costs per kW, $/kW
Total U.S. Residential Customers
33
Annual savings per household
0.004
125,000,000
~$80/year
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
6.1.3.2 Avoided New Delivery Capacity Costs
The Brattle Group estimates that $1.5 to $2 trillion needs to be spent on the U.S. utility delivery
infrastructure expansion over the next 20 years to meet the projected demand growth.34
Assuming that 10 percent of this investment can be avoided and that 50 percent of the
commercial and industrial savings are passed on to consumers, this translates to a delivery
reduction cost of approximately $50 per household per year.
Table 10: Estimate of Avoided New Delivery Capacity Costs
Total U.S. utility infrastructure improvement cost
Avoided cost
$1,500,000,000,000
$150,000,000,000
Interest rate
5%
Term, years
30
Annual cost
$10,000,000,000
Avoided infrastructure capacity costs per kW, $/kW
Total U.S. Residential Customers
Annual savings per household based on consumption.
$0.0026
125,000,000
~$50/year
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
33
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). State and County Quickfacts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
34
Chupta, M., Earle, R., Fox-Penner, P., & Hledik, R. (2008). Transforming America's Power Industry: The Investment
Challenge 2010-2030. The Brattle Group. Note that the Brattle Group also estimates that 214 GW of new generation
will be required by 2030 at a cost of $697 billion. This works out to a cost of $3,257 per installed kilowatt.
PAGE 29 of 61
6.1.4 Improved Generation Efficiencies
The total U.S. fossil fuel consumption for electricity is about 37 quadrillion BTU.35 Based on a
total electricity supply of 3,700 million MWh,36 the overall electricity system efficiency is 35
percent, wasting about 65 percent of the input energy or 24 quadrillion BTU. Based on new smart
grid system rules that allow consumers the choice to procure generation with higher efficiencies
and allow vertically integrated utility commissions to pursue competitive higher efficiency
generation, we assume a 50 percent improvement in efficiency to 53 percent. This results in a
savings of about 12 billion mmBTU or $37 billion annually at $3/mmBTU. The savings estimates
in Table 11 calculations use EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook usage data for each sector and
assume that 50 percent of the commercial and industrial savings is passed on to consumers. The
average savings is estimated at about $200 per household annually.
Table 11: Generation Efficiency Savings
USAGE, MILLION
MWH
MMBTU SAVINGS
TOTAL SAVINGS
AT $3/MMBTU
SAVINGS PER
HOUSEHOLD
Residential
1,380
4,600,000,000
$13,700,000,000
$110
Commercial
1,350
4,500,000,000
$13,400,000,000
$54
980
3,200,000,000
$9,700,000,000
$39
3,710
12,300,000,000
$36,900,000,000
~$200/year
Industrial
Total
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
6.1.5 Reduced Transmission and Distribution Losses
Smart switching and peak demand reduction technologies can potentially reduce transmission
and distribution losses. The EIA estimates current (2008) transmission losses to be about 7
percent.37 The EIA estimated that these losses could be reduced to 5.3 percent through the
Smart Grid American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grants, which generally provide
for only partial modernized grid deployments. This 1.7 percent reduction in losses translates to a
reduction in generation costs incurred by consumers. Using transmission and distribution (T&D)
and generation costs by sector from Table A8 in the Annual Energy Outlook 2010, the average
savings per household is about $20 annually. This assumes only 50 percent of the commercial
and industrial savings are passed on to consumers.
35
36
37
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A2.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, p.10.
PAGE 30 of 61
Table 12: Estimate of Annual Savings Due to Reduced T&D Losses
Average T&D costs
$31 /MWh
Residential generation savings = 1.6%*($112-$31/MWh)*1,380 million MWh
$1,800 million
Commercial generation savings = 50%*1.6%*($103-$31/MWh)*1,350 million MWh
$785 million
Industrial generation savings = 50%*1.6%* ($68-$13/MWh)*980 million MWh
$293 million
Total savings
$2,900 million
Total number of residential customers
125 million
Annual cost savings per household
$23/year
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
6.1.6 Reduced Operating Costs
Grid modernization will enable utilities to eliminate operations waste and inefficiency. This
includes eliminating repair costs associated with restoring power, as well as automating
numerous manual operations from meter reading to customer services. For the purposes of this
analysis, the operations savings were offset by increased preventive maintenance and increased
operating costs associated with maintaining all of the new smart technology. Further analysis is
warranted to quantify the potential consumer savings associated with eliminating operational
waste.
6.2
INDIRECT SAVINGS
Focusing solely on the on-bill savings would ignore the
majority of what a modernized grid can offer in terms of
savings based on accounting for the economic and
societal losses associated with electricity safety,
interruptions and power quality events. While these
issues do not appear on a monthly bill, they can cost
billions of dollars per year and take a tremendous toll on
residential, commercial and municipal resources (see
Section 3).
These savings are based on the assumptions that
smart grid investments produce at least a 50 percent
improvement in safety, reliability and power quality —
putting the U.S. on par with European performance.
Table 13 shows that U.S. electricity reliability is not
keeping pace with performance in Europe, placing our
country at an economic disadvantage. Specifically, the
U.S. falls behind in measures of:

Table 13: Comparison of Average
National Reliability Metrics with
U.S. Competitors
COUNTRY
SAIDI
SAIFI
Germany
23
0.5
Denmark
24
0.5
Netherlands
33
0.3
Italy
58
2.2
France
62
1.0
Austria
72
0.9
UK
90
0.8
Spain
104
2.2
United States
240
1.5
Source: Council of European Energy
Regulators ASBL (2008). 4th Benchmarking
Report on the Quality of Electricity Supply,
Brussels:CEER.
SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index, in minutes) — the average number of
minutes a customer is without power; and
PAGE 31 of 61

SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index) — the average number of
interruptions a customer experiences.
One of the reason electricity system operators cannot justify investment is that they do not
account for the injuries, deaths or economic losses to families and businesses when the power
goes out. Furthermore, system operators are not rewarded for tracking and eliminating
operational waste and lost productivity within the obsolete electricity system.
6.2.1 Improved Reliability and Power Quality
One of the major areas where a modernized grid would reduce costs is reliability and power
quality. Electricity has become such a crucial part of our everyday lives that when interruptions
do occur, the financial impact can be enormous. Beyond the repair crews required by the utility to
solve the problem, lost productivity, loss of goods or data, accidents related to the interruption
and customer reimbursements can all drive the true cost of an interruption to staggering heights.
Because reporting on interruption costs is so deficient, the actual price of an interruption can only
be estimated.
LBNL analyzed the assumptions made in prior estimates and developed their own framework for
assessing the cost of interruptions.38 LBNL estimated the economic losses of unreliable electricity
to be approximately $80 billion per year, but it could be as high as $130 billion per year, not
including power quality events. Reports by EPRI and the U.S. Department of Energy have
estimated the cost of electricity interruptions at between $30 billion and $400 billion per year39 —
quite a large range.
Based on these figures, it is estimated that the national average cost of interruptions to
consumers and businesses of $150 billion per year. Assuming that smart grid investments will
improve reliability and power quality performance by 50 percent, we estimate $75 billion in
indirect savings for consumers. This was converted to an average annual household savings
using the following methods and assumptions:

Average Indirect Cost Savings40 = $75 billion per year

Average Annual kWh Consumed41 = 3,710 billion KWh

Total number of residential customers = 125 million
Assuming 50 percent of the commercial and industrial costs gets passed on to consumers, this
works out to an average household cost of interruptions of about $400 per year. This cost
represents the average direct cost of interruptions experienced by households and the indirect
38
LaCammare, K. H., & Eto, J. H. (2004). Understanding the Cost of Power Interruptions to U.S. Electricity
Consumers, LBNL 55718. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Analysis. Berkeley:
University of California Berkeley.
39
Primen. (2001). The Cost of Power Disturbances to Industrial and Digital Economy Companies. Consortium for
Electric Infrastructure to Support a Digital Society. Madison: EPRI.
40
Lawton, L., Sullivan, M., Van Liere, K., Katz, A., & Eto, J. (2003). A Framework and Review of Customer Outage
Costs: Integration and Analysis of Electric Utility Outage Cost Surveys, LBNL 54365. Population Research Systems,
LLC and Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley.
41
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
PAGE 32 of 61
costs of goods and services levied to households, as manufacturers and service providers will
pass costs of interruptions on to their customers.
Table 14: Interruption Cost Indirect Savings
USAGE, MILLION
MWH
INTERRUPTION
COST SAVINGS PER
SECTOR, BILLIONS $
SAVINGS PER
HOUSEHOLD
Residential
1,380
$27
$216
Commercial
1,350
$27
$108
980
$21
$84
3,710
$75
~$400/year
Industrial
Total
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
Variations in power quality can also take a costly toll on the community. Momentary dips and
changes in power quality can wreak havoc in data centers and other businesses that are
dependent on a steady, continuous flow of power for operation. Currently most utilities are not
required to track these momentary variations, and more research is needed to determine their
true financial impact.
6.3
FUTURE REVENUE POTENTIAL
Grid modernization has the potential for allowing consumers to earn revenue for providing
valuable services. Consumers can only earn revenue if:
1) They are provided with access to all Independent System Operator ancillary service
payments such as day-ahead hourly markets, demand response, capacity and power
quality services.
2) They can cost-effectively interconnect with the grid and net-meter at market value for the
electricity produced. Other market reforms that increase the revenue for customers
include:
a. Rollover net-metering for excess generation in a month, trued up annually.
b. Physical net-metering for multi-tenant buildings that provide for building efficiency
upgrades and solar capability additions, while gaining market power for
procurement. Building energy improvements can be added to each tenant’s bill.
c. Virtual net-metering, which allows buildings in close proximity to each other to
aggregate meters for procurement and sharing local clean generation.
6.3.1 Revenue for Providing Electricity and Ancillary Services
As smart grid technologies progress and electricity markets mature, consumers can become both
ancillary service providers and electricity suppliers. Ancillary services can include demand
response, day-ahead markets, capacity markets and power quality services. Based on the
estimates outlined below, consumers could save/earn an average of $250 per year per
household if empowered to become market participants. Consumers can generate
savings/revenue by:
PAGE 33 of 61

Participating in market demand response, where consumers can receive $5 to $20 per
kW per month for agreeing to reduce peak demand when called upon in the New York,
PJM, Florida and New England independent system operator areas. Assuming a home
could reduce peak demand by 15 percent or 0.5 kW, the homeowner could earn $30 to
$120 a year in revenue;

Participating in a utility curtailment program or event-based demand response where the
consumer can be paid $20 to $40 a year to allow the utility to curtail major loads to protect
the grid during a momentary system imbalance;

Participating in day-ahead markets whereby a consumer sells a fixed price supply
contract in the day-ahead markets. Assuming a home could reduce peak demand by 15
percent, or 0.5 kW, the homeowner could earn 0.5 kW times 1,000 hours times an
average 8 cents/kWh difference between the day-ahead and the contact price, or $36
annually; and

Constructing home solar photovoltaic and wind systems, which reduce electricity costs
and create a possible revenue source. The economic payback varies widely across the
country depending upon the policy rules and cost of electricity. Solar PV prices have been
falling and the economics are improving. For the purposes of this study, no savings are
projected.
6.3.2 Emission Reduction Credits
The U.S. EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook42 summarizes major emissions from electricity generation
as 2.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide (see Table A18 in the report), 7 million tons of sulfur dioxide
and three million tons of nitrogen oxide at estimated costs of $20 (assumed), $1,500 and $3,000
per ton over the next decade, respectively (see page 82 in the report). The total annual cost is
estimated at $68 billion. If consumers are allowed to receive credit for conservation that curbs
fossil fuel generation, they could possibly receive an income stream for reducing emissions. The
savings shown below assume a 30 percent reduction in emissions based on improvements in
conservation, generation efficiency and reductions in generation emissions. The revenue per
kWh for a 30 percent reduction is $68 billion times 0.3 divided by 3,713 million MWh, or 0.5
cents/kWh.
It is also assumed that commercial and industrial users pass on 50 percent of the revenue to
consumers in the form of lower costs of services. A consumer that switches from coal-fired
generation to combined cycle gas generation reduces emissions by 60 to 80 percent.
42
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Tables A1
‒ A20.
PAGE 34 of 61
Table 15: Emissions Reduction Revenue/Savings
USAGE, MILLION
MWH
EMISSIONS
REDUCTION
REVENUE, BILLIONS $
REVENUE/SAVINGS
PER HOUSEHOLD
Residential
1,380
$7.5
$59
Commercial
1,350
$7.4
$29
980
$5.3
$22
3,710
$20.2
~$110/year
Industrial
Total
See Appendix D: Benefit Calculations, for information on how these numbers were derived.
6.4
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY
Significant improvements to grid reliability, power quality and stabilizing of the grid from
inadvertent interactions or terrorist attacks will protect safety. Electricity is a significant life safety
hazard for grid operators and consumers.
Australia appears to be the only country that requires utilities to report public deaths or injuries
caused by power interruptions or interactions with the distribution system.43 For comparison
purposes, the railroad industry reports all deaths or injuries caused by trains in accordance with
the Federal Railroad Administration’s Accident/Incident Reporting Requirements. The text box on
page 37 provides several examples of power line interaction deaths for consumers reported by
the media.
Consistent reporting is needed to quantify the non-occupational deaths from contact with power
lines, as well as other deaths related to power interruptions (e.g., loss of cooling, loss of heating,
fires from candles used for light and loss of life-support systems).
Self-healing attributes of transmission and distribution systems will help improve system safety.
This includes protecting exposed system components and enabling significantly faster deenergization of downed power lines. Smart sectionalizing switches and cyber security will prevent
both inadvertent accidents and terrorism. In addition, local distributed generation can be
strategically deployed to provide backup power when substation supply is lost. Specific safety
improvement examples include,

Smart switches that isolate downed power lines.

Underground local distribution systems would prevent interactions with local overhead
power lines, a major cause of non-utility worker electrocutions.

Communicating to local residents the danger associated with overhead power lines could
prevent accidents. This includes outlining what to do when you encounter a downed
power line.
43
Australian Electrical Regulatory Authority Council. (2005 ‒ 2006). Electrical Incident Data: Australia and New
Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.erac.gov.au/downloads/Erac%202005-2006.pdf
PAGE 35 of 61
6.4.1 Direct Contact with Power Lines
In terms of safety, utilities track and report deaths and injuries of workers in accordance with
standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This agency
also tracks deaths related to workers from other industries that come in contact with power lines.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that about 100 people each
year die from contact with power lines and more than half are not from the utility industry.
However, this does not include non-occupational deaths from contact with power lines. Tables 16
and 18 provide a summary of work-related, electricity-related deaths from 1992 to 2003.44 Table
17 reveals that contact with overhead lines is a leading cause of non-electricity worker deaths,
totaling 630 over 12 years. Table 16: Worker Death Statistics by Trade
TRADE
# DEATHS
% OF TOTAL
Electrical workers
586
34%
Construction laborers
274
16%
Carpenters
97
6%
Non-electrical supervisors
86
5%
Roofers
72
4%
Other trades
600
35%
1,715
100%
Total
Source: McCann, M. (2006). Why Are So Many Construction Workers Being Electrocuted?
Table 17: Worker Death Statistics by Cause
ELECTRICAL
WORKERS
OTHER
CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS
Electrical wiring/equipment
341 (58%)
272 (24%)
Overhead power lines
201 (34%)
630 (56%)
Machinery, appliances
25 (4%)
126 (11%)
Other
19 (3%)
101 (9%)
Total
586 (99%)
1,129 (100%)
CONTACT WITH
Source: McCann, M. (2006). Why Are So Many Construction Workers Being Electrocuted?
44
McCann, M. (2006). Why Are So Many Construction Workers Being Electrocuted? Retrieved from
http://www.elcosh.org/en/document/557/d000539/why-are-so-many-construction-workers-beingelectrocuted%253F.html
PAGE 36 of 61
6.4.2 Outage Related Deaths and Injuries
When an area of a city loses power, police and firefighters must be diverted from protecting
neighborhoods to recovery operations and to make sure citizens are safe. When the power fails,
many residents turn to candles for light and generators for power — both of which introduce an
inherent danger. Electricity is critical to residential safety — heating, cooling or medical support
and outages tax first responders. Similarly, the transportation infrastructure is compromised as
traffic lights go dark and police are reassigned to direct traffic.
The Names Behind the Numbers
March 27, 2008 — Cleveland, Ohio
6-year-old Nathan Kenemore came into contact with an un-insulated, high-voltage power line
as he was climbing the branches of a tree.
Source: Wineka, M. (2008, September 17). Power company sued in death of 6-year-old. Retrieved from
Salisburypost.com: http://www.salisburypost.com/Area/091708-electrocution-lawsuit
February 4, 2009 — Galesburg, Ill.
Patricia Higgins, 57, came upon an accident and got out of her van to help. She lost her
balance in a snow-filled ditch and grabbed a support wire. A downed power line from a broken
pole was on the support wire and Higgins was electrocuted.
Source: Taylor, J. (2009, January 30). Woman electrocuted helping at crash scene. Retrieved from
Galesburg.com: http://www.galesburg.com/news/x977238883/Woman-electrocuted-helping-at-crashscene June 2, 2009 — Allegheny, Pa.
Carrie Goretzka, a 39-year-old mother of two, died after a power line fell on her in her
backyard.
Source: Riely, K. (2009, July 14). Allegheny Energy sued over Irwin woman's death. Retrieved from
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09195/983734-59.stm
July 25, 2010 — Lancaster County, Pa.
Sheila Coldren, 53, was electrocuted by a downed power line at her home.
Source: Robinson, R. (2010, July 26). Police ID woman killed in storm. Retrieved from Lancaster
Online: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/269895_Police-ID-woman-killed-in-storm.html
January 16, 2011 — San Bernadino, Calif.
Steven Vego, 43, Sharon Vego, 42, and Jonathan Cole, 21, died after contacting a downed
power line. Sharon and Jonathan were killed trying to free Steven. Rescue crews waited at the
scene for more than an hour for power to be interrupted.
Source: Li, S., & Allen, S. (2011, January 15). Downed power line kills 3 in San Bernardino. Retrieved
from Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/15/local/la-me-three-dead-20110115
PAGE 37 of 61
7 Conclusions
The full benefits of an improved electricity grid can far exceed the grid modernization costs — a
typical household realizing a potential benefit of $1,200 with an estimated cost of $400. These
investments improve the grid by eliminating waste, reducing costs, reducing interruptions, and
improving societal and economic conditions. A customer can realize these benefits directly on
their monthly bill, indirectly through reduced power interruptions and through revenue for
providing ancillary grid services.
The costs outlined do not necessarily mean that electricity will be free. Instead, savings will be
used to offset investment costs. Considering the amount of capital, resources and energy that is
wasted in the current system, there are a lot of savings that can be reallocated to pay for the
efficiency improvements. Therefore, consumers may not see all or most of these savings until the
investment is paid off.
Likewise the benefits estimated depend upon market
reforms that empower and enable consumers and local
governments to participate and invest as partners with
system operators and owners. The system is so vast and
has long suffered from under-investment that updating it
with modern technologies will require investment by the
public and private sectors to collaboratively improve
performance.
“Technology has no inherent
value; technology defines its
value by what result it achieves
in terms of improving the
customer experience.”
— Robert Galvin,
as CEO of Motorola
The wide-ranging benefits of a modern grid are far more
expansive than on-bill savings but there is no way around the fact that comprehensive grid
modernization requires large commitments of resources. However, no investment of this
magnitude can be fully evaluated on its price tag alone. With reduced emissions and
environmental impacts, public health and safety will improve for future generations and the jobcreation prospects of a burgeoning energy industry will keep America competitive with other
industrialized nations. Consumers, local government officials, entrepreneurs and system
operators must work together to initiate the changes and prioritize grid modernization to realize
the financial and environmental benefits.
PAGE 38 of 61
8 References
Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., & Biermayer, P. (2008). U.S. Building-Sector Energy
Efficiency Potential, LBNL-1096E. Berkeley: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
Chupta, M., Earle, R., Fox-Penner, P., & Hledik, R. (2008). Transforming America’s Power
Industry: The Investment Challenge 2010-2030. The Brattle Group.
Council of European Energy Regulators ASBL. (2008). 4th Benchmarking Report on the Quality of
Electricity Supply. Brussels: CEER.
Energy Star. (2009, August). Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use. Retrieved from
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011, January). Maximizing Consumer Value Through Dynamic
Pricing: A Suggested Approach for Regulators. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/sites/default/files/DynamicPricing_0110.pdf
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2010, April). Naperville Case Study. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/galvin-conducts-naperville-smart-grid-initiative-case-study
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2007). Perfect Power prototype design reports for the Illinois Institute of
Technology and the Mesa del Sol development. Retrieved from
http://galvinpower.org/projects/perfect-power-illinois-institute-technology
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011). Perfect Power Seal of Approval. Retrieved from
http://www.galvinpower.org/sealofapproval
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2011). The Policy Framework for a Consumer-Driven Electric Power
System. Retrieved from http://www.galvinpower.org/policy-toolkit/policy-framework-consumerdriven-electric-power-system
Gellings, C. (2011). Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of
the Investment Requirements and the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid. Palo
Alto: Electric Power Research Institute.
General Electric. (2010). 2009 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.ge.com/ar2009/
Hammerstrom, D., Ambrosio, R., Brous, J., Carlon, T., Chassin, D., DeSteese, J., et al. (2007).
Pacific Northwest GridWise Testbed Demonstrations Projects: Part I. Olympia Peninsula Project,
PNNL-17167. Richland: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Home Depot. (2010). Home Depot 2009 Annual Report. Retrieved from
http://www.homedepotar.com/html/index.html
Illinois Commerce Commission. (2010). Electric Reliability Reports. Retrieved from
http://www.icc.illinois.gov/electricity/electricreliability.aspx
Illinois Instititue of Technology. (2010). Perfect Power at IIT. Retrieved from
http://www.iit.edu/perfect_power
Ito, J. H., & LaCommare, K. H. (2008). Tracking the Reliability of the U.S. Electric Power System:
An Assessment of Publicly Available Information Reported to State Public Utility Commissions,
LBNL 1092E. Berkeley: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
PAGE 39 of 61
Kelly, J., Rouse, G., & Nechas, R. (2010, July 15). Illinois Electricity System Guiding Principles and
Policy Framework. Retrieved from http://www.galvinpower.org/resources/library/reports-whitepapers
Kyocera Solar Inc. (2011). Kyocera Solar PV Calculator. Retrieved from:
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/products/pv_calculator.html
LaCammare, K. H., & Eto, J. H. (2004). Understanding the Cost of Power Interruptions to U.S.
Electricity Consumers, LBNL 55718. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Energy Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley.
Lawton, L., Sullivan, M., Van Liere, K., Katz, A., & Eto, J. (2003). A Framework and Review of
Customer Outage Costs: Integration and Analysis of Electric Utility Outage Cost Surveys, LBNL
54365. Population Research Systems, LLC and Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley.
Lutron. (2011). Commercial Solutions: Energy Savings. Retrieved from
http://www.lutron.com/Residential-Commercial-Solutions/CommercialSolutions/Pages/CommercialEnergySavings.aspx
McCann, M. (2006). Why Are So Many Construction Workers Being Electrocuted? Retrieved from
http://www.elcosh.org/en/document/557/d000539/why-are-so-many-construction-workers-beingelectrocuted%253F.html
Pepco. (2010). Pepco Unveils Reliability Enhancement Plan for the District of Columbia. Retrieved
from http://www.pepco.com/welcome/news/releases/archives/2010/article.aspx?cid=1552
PJM. (2009). Real Time. Retrieved from http://www.pjm-miso.com/markets/energy-market/realtime.html
Primen. (2001). The Cost of Power Disturbances to Industrial and Digital Economy Companies.
Consortium for Electric Infrastructure to Support a Digital Society. Madison: EPRI.
Rouse, G., & Kelly, J. (2011, February). Electricity Reliability: Problems, Progress, and Policy
Solutions. Retrieved from: http://www.galvinpower.org/resources/library/reports-white-papers
Shirley, W., Cowart, R., Sedano, R., Weston, F. W., Harrington, C., & Moskovitz, D. (2001).
Distribution System Cost Methodologies for Distributed Generation, NREL/SR-560-32500. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gardiner: The Regulatory Assistance Project.
SmartLabs Inc. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.smartlabsinc.com/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and County Quickfacts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Department of Energy. (2006). Annual Energy
Outlook 2006.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy
Outlook 2010.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Existing Generating
Units in the United States by State, Company and Plant 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/capacity.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2005). Household Electricity
Reports, Table US-1.
PAGE 40 of 61
Appendix A: Achieving Perfect Reliability
One municipality that was able to dramatically
improve the reliability of their electricity
system and reduce the cost of power for their
customers is the Chicago suburb of
Naperville, Ill.
In the early 1990s, Naperville’s municipal
utility was not performing well, and the city
council held a vote on whether to sell it to the
larger areawide utility, ComEd. At this time,
three or four customer outages per year were
common. The sale was defeated by one vote
in the city council, and the municipal utility
leadership decided instead to pursue perfect
power reliability without raising costs. They started applying the concepts behind what is today
called Six Sigma or quality improvement. Over a period of almost 20 years, and without raising
rates, the local grid was transformed into one
of the most reliable suburban grids in the
Naperville was able to invest hundreds of
country.45
millions into Perfect Power by requiring
In fact, Naperville maintained lower rates than
new developments to pay their own way.
ComEd, even while investing tens of millions
Prior to this policy change, system
of dollars a year into continuous improvement.
expansion was siphoning off most of the
Their first step was to install a Supervisory
improvement funding. In addition, they
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system
focused on early changes that reduce
so that they could evaluate loading on their
their O&M budgets, leaving more money
circuits and develop plans for problem areas.
for investment in improvement. They
Over the course of the next decade, they ran
established an ethic that they would not
power lines underground and implemented a
raise rates but instead find innovative
new “high-reliability design” that involves
ways to eliminate waste and shift
circuit looping and deployment of multiple
spending to investments that produced
sectionalizing smart switches on each loop.
meaningful and dramatic outcomes.
This allowed faults to be sensed and isolated,
minimizing or eliminating outages. Later on in
their process, Naperville started using their SCADA, combined with a Geographic Information
System (GIS), to pinpoint problems, which allowed their operators to either fix problems remotely
or dispatch linemen to the problem areas quickly.
For utilities in growing areas, it can be difficult to invest in the existing system, as a large portion
of transmission and distribution capital allocations are used for system expansion. Naperville
alleviated this problem by using a “pay your own way” rate mechanism, which required new
customers to pay for any system changes needed to support new development. Cost recovery
for new development is accomplished via a temporary rate rider (e.g., one cent per kWh) that is
levied until all utility costs are recovered, usually in three to five years.
45
Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2010, April). Naperville Case Study. Retrieved from http://www.galvinpower.org/galvinconducts-naperville-smart-grid-initiative-case-study
PAGE 41 of 61
Table 19 shows the current status of Naperville’s smart grid program and Figure 1 shows
Naperville’s SAIDI since 1996. As this data shows, dramatic improvements were made and were
accomplished by applying continuous improvement methods to establish a new, more reliable
design philosophy (i.e., underground, redundancy and sectionalizing switches). In this process,
Naperville applied metrics, set goals, monitored performance and identified the root causes of
problems, continuously improving performance through refinements that mitigated the problems
as they emerged.
Table 18: Naperville Smart Grid Process
SMART GRID SUBSYSTEM
PERCENT COMPLETE
SCADA
100%
Looping
80%
Underground
>90%
Distribution automation
75%
Substation automation
70%
AMI
two pilot projects just started
Communication infrastructure
70%
Source: Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2010, April). Naperville Case Study.
http://www.galvinpower.org/galvin-conducts-naperville-smart-grid-initiative-case-study
Figure 1: Naperville SAIDI Improvements
Source: Galvin Electricity Initiative. (2010, April). Naperville Case Study. http://galvinpower.org/galvin-conductsnaperville-smart-grid-initiative-case-study
PAGE 42 of 61
Appendix B: Zero Direct Carbon Emissions on the IIT Campus
In 1996, Bob Galvin challenged the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) to strive for perfection in
the delivery of their campus-wide electricity. This included competitive prices, no power failures
and no carbon emissions. IIT’s initial reaction was simple and direct: The task was impossible.
Yet, a mere four years later, IIT was delivering electricity to everyone on site with no direct
carbon emissions. This was accomplished through a competitive and innovative electricity supply
solicitation. Exelon Energy was selected based on a
competitive three-year contract that specifically called for
Figure 2: IIT Fuel Mix!
no carbon electricity. Exelon energy delivered with a fuel
mix of 60 percent hydro, 35 percent nuclear and 5 percent
Wind 5% wind power (see Figure 3). This clean, “no direct carbon”
power is being delivered for roughly 25 percent less than
Nuc the cost of default power in Illinois.
35% How did IIT achieve this success? First, they recognized
that a flatter load profile would result in lower prices, and
second, they had the ability to aggregate all of their
customers for the purpose of procuring power from a third
party electricity supplier. This allowed IIT to pursue power
from a wide range of suppliers, some of which have quietly
built up large fleets of clean power generation (e.g., Exelon
Energy).
Hydro 60% At the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ National Electricity Forum held
in February 2011, industry leaders revealed that dramatic reductions in carbon delivery are
achievable immediately, if consumers have a choice.

Mary Healey, Connecticut consumer advocate, explained that the state is moving away
from renewable portfolio standards and utility-directed efficiency programs because these
are too expensive for consumers and ineffective to rationalize the cost. Instead,
Connecticut can achieve clean energy goals cost-effectively through competitive markets
and state-led competitive clean energy contracts.

Steve Whitley, president and CEO of the New York Independent System Operator
(NYISO), explained that competitive markets are an effective approach to a clean energy
future, attracting billions of dollars in investment to New England and New York for 28,000
MW of combined cycle gas generation, as well as significant new wind resources.

Jack Fusco, president and CEO of Calpine, challenged the state regulators to give their
residents access to the 2.5c/kWh marginal cost, clean natural gas power that his
company generates nationwide. Most of this clean power produces about 75 percent less
carbon than a coal plant.
PAGE 43 of 61
Appendix C: Waste Calculations
BUILDING INEFFICIENCY
BUILDING INEFFICIENCY WASTE CALCULATIONS
Electricity
Sales (billion
46
kWh)
End-use Price
(cents per
47
kWh)
Residential
1,380
11.4
.50 * $0.114/kWh * 1,380,000,000,000 kWh =
$78,660,000,000
Commercial
1,350
10.4
.50 * $0.104/kWh * 1,350,000,000,000 kWh =
$70,200,000,000
Sector
Total Waste
Cost of 50 percent waste
$148,860,000,000
RECOVERABLE WASTE CALCULATIONS
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that building owners could save up to 30 percent
48
through conservation.
Electricity
Sales (billion
49
kWh)
End-Use Price
(cents per
50
kWh)
Residential
1,380
11.4
.30 * $0.114/kWh * 1,380,000,000,000 kWh =
$47,196,000,000
Commercial
1,350
10.4
.30 * $0.104/kWh * 1,350,000,000,000 kWh =
$42,120,000,000
Sector
Total Waste
46
47
Savings from 30 percent improvement
$89,316,000,000
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
Ibid.
48
Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., & Biermayer, P. (2008). U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential,
LBNL-1096E. Berkeley: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
49
50
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
Ibid.
PAGE 44 of 61
WASTED CAPITAL
PLANT UTILIZATION CALCULATIONS
51
52
According to the EIA, the total U.S. generation capacity is 1,010 GW. Total electricity
consumption is about 3,800 million MWh. This equates to an average plant utilization of about 40
percent or 400 GW.
System capacity
1,010,000 MWh
Total system delivered
3,800,000,000 MWh
System capacity factor
3,800,000,000 MWh / (1,010,000 MW * 8760) hours = .43
WASTED GENERATION CAPITAL CALCULATIONS
The system capacity calculation above shows that literally more than 50 percent of our installed
53
generation is wasted. At $2,200/kW , this waste is costing consumers $37 billion a year.
Wasted generation
.50 * 1,010,000 MWh = 505,000 MWh = 505,000,000 kWh
Plant costs
$2,200/KW
Term
30 years
Total costs
$2,200/kWh * 505,000,000 kWh = 1,111,000,000,000
Annual costs
$1,111,000,000,000 / 30 years = $37,033,333,333/yr
WASTED DISTRIBUTION CAPITAL CALCULATIONS
54
The very peaky load causes enormous waste in our T&D system as well. At $1,500/kW , this waste
is costing consumers $25 billion a year.
Wasted generation
.50 * 1,010,000 MWh = 505,000 MWh = 505,000,000 kWh
Plant costs
$1,500/KW
Term
Total costs
Annual costs
51
30 years
$1,500/kWh * 505,000,000 kWh = $757,500,000,000
$757,500,000,000 / 30 years = $25,250,000,000/yr
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, p. 66‒67.
52
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Existing Generating Units in the United
States by State, Company and Plant 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/capacity.html
53
54
Assumed average cost of generation per kilowatt hour.
Assumed average cost of transmission and distribution per kilowatt hour.
PAGE 45 of 61
AVOIDABLE GENERATION CAPITAL CALCULATIONS
The EIA Annual Energy Outlook Table A9 projects that the U.S. will add about 170 GW. Assuming
55
that 100 GW of generation is unneeded equates to annual waste of $8 billion at $2,200/KW
financed over 30 years.
Projected new generation
100 GW = 100,000,000 kW
Plant costs
$2,200/KW
Interest rate
5 percent
Term
30 years
Total costs
$2200/kW * 100,000,000 kW = $220,000,000,000
.05 * $220,000,000,000 * (1+.05)^30 / ((1+.05)^30-1) =
$14,311,315,718
Annual waste
AVOIDABLE DISTRIBUTION CAPITAL CALCULATIONS
The Brattle Group estimates that $1.5 to $2 trillion needs to be spent on the U.S. utility distribution
56
infrastructure expansion over the next 20 years to meet the projected demand growth. However,
grid modernization will actually enable consumers to reduce their electricity consumption. Assuming
that at least 10 percent of this investment is unnecessary equates to an annual waste of $10 billion
financed over 30 years.
Avoided distribution
infrastructure investment
$150,000,000,000
Interest rate
5 percent
Term
30 years
Annual waste
55
.05 * $150,000,000,000 * (1+.05)^30 / ((1+.05)^30-1) =
$9,757,715,262
Assumed average cost of generation per kilowatt hour.
56
Chupta, M., Earle, R., Fox-Penner, P., & Hledik, R. (2008). Transforming America's Power Industry: The Investment
Challenge 2010-2030. The Brattle Group. The Brattle Group also estimates that 214 GW of new generation will be
required by 2030 at a cost of $697 billion. This works out to a cost of $3,257 per installed kilowatt.
PAGE 46 of 61
GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ENERGY INEFFICIENCY
ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED CALCULATIONS
The annual electricity sales for each sector can be found in the Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table
A8: Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices and Emissions.
Sector
Sales (million
57
MWh)
Sales (mmBTU)
58
Sales (QBTU)
Residential
1,380
4,709,940,000
4.71
Commercial
1,350
4,607,550,000
4.61
Industrial
980
3,344,740,000
3.34
Total
3710
12,662,230,000
12.66
59
GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS
The total fossil fuel consumption can be found in the Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A2. We
find that 36.6 QBTU of electricity is consumed while only 12.66 QBTU actually reaches end-users.
This reveals an electric system efficiency of 35 percent.
Total fossil fuel consumption for electricity
57
58
59
60
36.6 QBTU
60
Electricity supplied
12.66 QBTU
Electricity system efficiency =
(12.66 QBTU/36.6 QBTU)*100
35 percent
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
1MWh = 3.413 mm BTU.
1mmBTU = 1 billion QBTU.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A2.
PAGE 47 of 61
GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY WASTE CALCULATIONS
When generating and transmitting electricity, thermal losses are inevitable. The farther power is sent,
the more energy is lost. This equates to about 24 quadrillion BTU or $70 billion annually in wasted
fuel. Sector
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
100%
Efficiency
Baseline
Efficiency 35%
(Sales
mmBTU/.35)
Waste at $3/mmBTU
4,709,940,000
13,456,971,428
$3/mmBTU * (13,456,971,428 mmBTU 4,709,940,000 mmBTU) = $26,241,094,284
4,607,550,000
13,164,428,571
$3/mmBTU * (13,164,428,571 mmBTU 4,607,550,000 mmBTU) = $25,670,635,713
3,344,740,000
9,556,400,000
$3/mmBTU * (9,575,902,857 mmBTU 3,351,566,000 mmBTU) = $18,634,980,000
Total
$70,546,709,997
RECOVERABLE WASTE CALCULATIONS
It is assumed that new smart grid rules that allow customers the choice to procure generation with
higher efficiencies and vertically integrated utility commissions that pursue competitive higher
efficiency generation will produce a 50 percent improvement in generation efficiency, creating a new
system efficiency of 53 percent. Savings are achieved when less fuel is consumed to supply the
same electricity requirements. Sector
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
Baseline
Efficiency 35%
(Sales
mmBTU/.34)
Improved
Efficiency 53%
(Sales
mmBTU/.53)
Savings at $3/mmBTU
13,456,971,428
8,886,679,245
$3/mmBTU * (3,456,971,428 mmBTU 8,886,679,245 mmBTU) = $13,710,876,549
13,164,428,571
8,693,490,566
$3/mmBTU * (13,164,428,571 mmBTU 8,693,490,566 mmBTU) = $13,412,814,015
9,556,400,000
6,310,830,188
$3/mmBTU * (9,556,400,000 mmBTU 6,310,830,188 mmBTU) = $9,736,709,436
$36,860,400,000
PAGE 48 of 61
POOR POWER RELIABILITY AND QUALITY
RELIABILITY AND POWER QUALITY WASTE CALCULATIONS
LBNL estimated the economic losses of unreliable electricity to be approximately $80 billion per year,
61
but it could be as high as $130 billion per year, not including power quality events. Reports by the
Electric Power Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy have estimated the cost of
62
electricity outages at $30 billion to $400 billion per year. Estimated annual national cost of outages to consumers and
businesses, based on the figures above
$150,000,000,000
RECOVERABLE WASTE CALCULATIONS
Based on the assumption that smart grid investments will improve reliability and power quality
performance by 50 percent, we estimate a $75 billion in indirect savings for consumers. Recoverable waste from grid
improvements
.5 * $150,000,000,000 = $75,000,000,000
EMISSIONS WASTE COST
EMISSIONS WASTE CALCULATIONS
63
The Annual Energy Outlook summarizes major emissions from electricity generation as 2.4 billion
tons of carbon dioxide (Table A18), 7 million tons of sulfur dioxide (page 82) and 3 million tons of
nitrogen oxide (page 82) at costs estimated at $20 (assumed), $1,500 (page 82) and $3,000 (page 82)
per ton over the next decade, respectively. The total annual cost is estimated at $68 billion.
Emission
Type
Emission amount
(tons)
Emission cost
per ton
Carbon
Dioxide
2,400,000,000
$20
2,400,000,000 tons * $20 / ton =
$48,000,000,000
Sulfur
Dioxide
7,000,000
$1,500
7,000,000 tons * $1,500 / ton =
$10,500,000,000
Nitrogen
Oxide
3,000,000
$3,000
3,000,000 tons * $3,000 / ton =
$9,000,000,000
Total
Emission cost total
$67,500,000,000
61
LaCammare, K. H., & Eto, J. H. (2004). Understanding the Cost of Power Interruptions to U.S. Electricity
Consumers, LBNL 55718. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Analysis. Berkeley:
University of California Berkeley.
62
Primen. (2001). The Cost of Power Disturbances to Industrial and Digital Economy Companies. Consortium for
Electric Infrastructure to Support a Digital Society. Madison: EPRI.
63
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Tables A1
‒ A20.
PAGE 49 of 61
RECOVERABLE WASTE CALCULATIONS
The savings shown below assume a , percent reduction in emissions based on improvements in
conservation, generation efficiency and reductions in generation emissions.
Emission
Type
30% reduction in
emissions (tons)
Emission cost
per ton
Carbon
Dioxide
.30 * 2,400,000,000 =
720,000,000
$20
720,000,000 tons * $20/ton =
$14,400,000,000
Sulfur
Dioxide
.30 * 7,000,000 =
2,100,000
$1500
2,100,000 tons * $1500/ton =
$3,150,000,000
Nitrogen
Oxide
.30 * 3,000,000 = 900,000
$3000
900,000 tons * $3000/ton =
$2,700,000,000
Total
Reduced emission cost total
$20,250,000,000
PAGE 50 of 61
Appendix D: Benefit Calculations
ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION SAVINGS
CONSUMPTION BASELINE CALCULATIONS
Total residential consumption
1,380,000,000,000 kWh
Total number of residential customers
Annual average consumption per customer
125,000,000
65
1,380,000,000,000 kWh / 125,000,000 = 11,040 kWh
Average national price
$0.114/kWh
Average annual residential bill
64
66
$0.114 * 11,040 kWh = $1,259
CONSUMPTION SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
Because definitive data has not been found that analyzes the permanence of energy savings over an
extended period of time from home automation, this research paper makes the conservative
assumption of 10 percent savings based on information from several automation companies.
Supporting Data
67
Vantage claims that in the average home, 40 percent of all electricity used to power home electronics
is consumed while they are turned off, and dimming all or most of your lights just 25 percent saves 5
percent in overall energy consumption.
Cortexa
68
claims their automation products can save homeowners 30 percent on their energy bills.
69
Magnum Energy Solutions conducted a study at a Wyndham Hotel that shows that rooms using
their Venergy automation system consumed 33 percent less energy than rooms without these controls.
70
Lutron reported 40 to 60 percent reductions to lighting loads in the commercial sector, without
adversely affecting productivity.
10 percent reduction in electricity
consumption
Consumption savings per customer
64
.10 * 11,040 kWh = 1,104 kWh
1,104 kWh * $0.114/kWh = $125.86
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
65
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Table 5. Residential Average Monthly
Bill by Census Division, and State. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
66
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Tables A1
‒ A20.
67
Vantage. (2011). Home Automation Savings. Retrieved from
http://www.vantagecontrols.com/green/home_automation_savings.html
68
Cortexa Automation. (2011). Cortexa Energy Saving Edition. Retrieved from http://www.cortexa.com/EnergyEdition
69
Magnum Energy Solutions. (2009, October 21). Independent Study: En-Ocean-Based Verde Controls Reduce Hotel
Room Energy Consumption 33%. Retrieved from http://www.magnumenergysolutions.com/case-study.php
70
Lutron. (2011). Commercial Solutions: Energy Savings. Retrieved from http://www.lutron.com/ResidentialCommercial-Solutions/Commercial-Solutions/Pages/CommercialEnergySavings.aspx
PAGE 51 of 61
DYNAMIC PRICING, TIME OF USE, SHIFTING PEAK DEMAND
DYNAMIC PRICING, TIME OF USE, SHIFTING PEAK DEMAND SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) reported peak load reductions of 20 percent in the
71
Olympia Peninsula demonstration project using dynamic pricing rate structures. An analysis for Illinois
Institute of Technology (IIT) indicated that IIT could save 25 percent of their electric costs just by
switching to real-time from fixed-price, third-party rates based on their 2006 electricity procurement
contract, 2006 real-time rates from PJM in ComEd’s territory and IIT’s 2006 hourly electricity
consumption.
Based on a conservative 10 percent reduction of electric costs, the average household will save $113.
Reduced annual residential consumption
10 percent reduction in costs
11,040 kWh – 1,104 kWh = 9,936 kWh
.10 * $.114/kWh * 9,936 kWh = $113
AVOIDED NEW GENERATION COSTS
GENERATION CAPACITY
If, through grid modernization, consumers could permanently reduce their peak demand by 10 percent,
72
the U.S. peak demand could be reduced by about 100 GW. This would more than offset the projected
100 GW of new demand by 2025. Furthermore, in a restructured generation market, the private sector
bears the cost of capital for new generation.
Current generation
1,010 GW
Projected new generation
100 GW
73
74
AVOIDED GENERATION CAPACITY COSTS
Assuming a new power plant costs 2,200/kW and financing costs about 5 percent over 30 years,
avoided capacity costs are achieved at a rate of $.004/kWh.
Avoided capacity
New plant cost
100,000,000 kW
$2,200/kW
75
71
Hammerstrom, D., Ambrosio, R., Brous, J., Carlon, T., Chassin, D., DeSteese, J., et al. (2007). Pacific Northwest
GridWise Testbed Demonstrations Projects: Part I. Olympia Peninsula Project, PNNL-17167. Richland: Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory.
72
This estimate assumes that the residential portion of peak capacity is proportional to the ratio of residential
consumption over total U.S. consumption. Total U.S. consumption was assumed to be 3,764 GWh and residential
consumption was assumed to be 1,392 GWh based on U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information
Administration, Table 5.1. Retail Sales of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector, 1996 through
August 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html.
73
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Existing Generating Units in the United
States by State, Company and Plant 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/capacity.html
74
75
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A9.
Assumed average cost of generation per kilowatt hour.
PAGE 52 of 61
Interest rate
5 percent
Term
30 years
Total plant cost
$2,200/kW * 100,000,000 kW = $220,000,000,000
.05 * $220,000,000,000 * (1+.05)^30 / ((1+.05)^30-1) =
$14,311,315,718
Annual plant payment
Avoided generation capacity
costs per kWh
$14,311,315,718 / 3,710,000,000,000 kWh
76
= $.004/kWh
SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD
These avoided generation capacity costs result in savings of more than $50 per average U.S.
household. This assumes that 50 percent of the commercial and industrial savings are passed on to
consumers.
Sector
Consumption (kWh)
Residential
1,380,000,000,000
77
Commercial
1,350,000,000,000
78
Industrial
980,000,000,000
Total savings
Total savings per
household
79
Savings passed on to households
1,380,000,000,000 kWh * $.004/kWh = $5,520,000,000
.5 * 1,350,000,000,000 * $.004/kWh = $2,700,000,000
.5 * 980,000,000,000 * $.004/kWh = $1,960,000,000
$10,180,000,000
$10,180,000,000 / 125,000,000 customers
80
= $81.44
76
77
78
79
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
Ibid.
Ibid.
80
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010, November). Table 5. Residential
Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
PAGE 53 of 61
AVOIDED NEW DISTRIBUTION COSTS
AVOIDED NEW DISTRIBUTION CAPACITY COSTS
The Brattle Group estimates that $1.5 to $2 trillion needs to be spent on the U.S. utility distribution
81
infrastructure expansion over the next 20 years to meet the projected demand growth. Assuming that
10 percent of this investment can be avoided, infrastructure capacity costs are avoided at a rate of
$.0079/kWh.
Total infrastructure improvement
costs
$1,500,000,000,000
Avoided cost
.10 * $1,500,000,000,000 = $150,000,000,000
Interest rate
5 percent
Term
30 years
^
Annual payment
.05 * $150,000,000,000 * (1+.05)^30 / ((1+.05) 30-1) =
$9,757,715,262
Avoided infrastructure capacity
costs per kWh
$9,757,715,262 / 3,710,000,000,000 kWh
82
= $.0026/kWh
SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD
This calculation assumes that 50 percent of the commercial and industrial savings are passed on to
consumers.
Sector
Consumption (kWh)
Savings passed on to households
Residential
1,380,000,000,000
83
1,380,000,000,000 kWh * $.0026/kWh =
$3,588,000,000
Commercial
1,350,000,000,000
84
.5 * 1,350,000,000,000 * $.0026/kWh = $1,755,000,000
Industrial
Total savings
Total savings per
household
980,000,000,000
84
.5 * 980,000,000,000 * $.0026/kWh = $1,274,000,000
$6,617,000,000
$6,617,000,000 / 125,000,000 customers
85
= $53
81
Chupta, M., Earle, R., Fox-Penner, P., & Hledik, R. (2008). Transforming America's Power Industry: The Investment
Challenge 2010-2030. The Brattle Group. Note that the Brattle Group also estimates that 214 GW of new generation
will be required by 2030 at a cost of $697 billion. This works out to a cost of $3,257 per installed kilowatt.
82
83
84
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
Ibid.
Ibid.
85
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Table 5. Residential Average Monthly
Bill by Census Division, and State. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
PAGE 54 of 61
GENERATION INEFFICIENCIES
ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED CALCULATIONS
The annual electricity sales for each sector can be found in Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8:
Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices and Emissions.
Sector
Sales (million MWh)
86
Sales (mmBTU)
87
Sales (QBTU)
Residential
1,380
4,709,940,000
4.71
Commercial
1,350
4,607,550,000
4.61
Industrial
980
3,344,740,000
3.34
Total
3710
12,662,230,000
12.66
88
GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS
The total fossil fuel consumption can be found in the Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A2. We find
that 36.6 QBTU of electricity is consumed while only 12.66 QBTU actually reaches end-users. This
reveals an electric system efficiency of 35 percent.
89
Total fossil fuel consumption for electricity
36.6 QBTU
Electricity supplied
12.66 QBTU
Electricity system efficiency = (12.66 QBTU /
36.6 QBTU) * 100
35 percent
86
87
88
89
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
1MWh = 3.413 mmBTU.
1mmBTU = 1 billion QBTU.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A2.
PAGE 55 of 61
TOTAL GENERATION EFFICIENCY SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
It is assumed that new smart grid rules that allow customers the choice to procure generation with
higher efficiencies and vertically integrated utility commissions that pursue competitive higher efficiency
generation will produce a 50 percent improvement in generation efficiency, creating a new system
efficiency of 53 percent. Savings are achieved when less fuel is consumed to supply the same electricity
requirements.
Sector
Baseline
efficiency 35%
(Sales
mmBTU/.34)
Improved
efficiency 53%
(Sales
mmBTU/.44)
Residential
Savings at $3/mmBTU
13,456,971,428
8,886,679,245
$3/mmBTU * (3,456,971,428 mmBTU 8,886,679,245 mmBTU) = $13,710,876,549
13,164,428,571
8,693,490,566
$3/mmBTU * (13,164,428,571 mmBTU 8,693,490,566 mmBTU) = $13,412,814,015
9,556,400,000
6,310,830,188
$3/mmBTU * (9,556,400,000 mmBTU 6,310,830,188 mmBTU) = $9,736,709,436
Commercial
Industrial
Total
$36,860,400,000
SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD CALCULATIONS
This calculation assumes that 50 percent of the commercial and industrial savings are passed on to
consumers.
Sector
Savings passed on to households
Residential
$13,710,876,549
Commercial
.5 * $13,412,814,015 = $6,706,407,008
Industrial
.5 * $9,736,709,436 = $4,868,354,718
$25,285,638,275
Total savings per
household
$25,285,638,275 / 125,000,000 customers
90
= $202
90
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010, November). Table 5: Residential
Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
PAGE 56 of 61
REDUCED TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION (T&D) LOSSES
AVERAGE T&D COSTS CALCULATIONS
The current costs of transmission and distribution are included in Table A8 of EIA’s Annual Energy
Outlook 2010.
Service category
Price per KWh
91
Price per MWh
Transmission
$0.007
$7.00
Distribution
$0.024
$24.00
Total
$0.031
$31.00
92
GENERATION COSTS CALCULATIONS
The cost of generation per sector is determined by subtracting the T&D cost from the retail price of
electricity.
Sector
Retail price per MWh
93
Generation cost per MWh
Residential
$112.60
$112.60 - $31.00 = $81.60
Commercial
$103.60
$103.60 - $31.00 = $72.60
Industrial
$68.30
$68.30 - $31.00 = $37.3
91
92
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
1MWh = 1,000 kWh.
93
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Retail Sales of Electricity to Ultimate
Customers: Total by End-Use Sector. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_1.html
PAGE 57 of 61
SAVINGS FROM REDUCED T&D LOSSES CALCULATIONS
The EIA estimates that investment in grid modernization will cause a 1.6 percent improvement in
94
transmission and distribution losses. This translates to reduction in generation costs to consumers.
Sector
Sales (million
95
MWh)
Savings from reduced T&D losses per sector
Residential
1,380
.016 * $81.60 / MWh * 1,380,000,000 MWh =
$1,801,728,000
Commercial
1,350
.016 * $72.60 / MWh * 1,350,000,000 MWh =
$1,568,160,000
980
.016 * $37.30 / MWh * 980,000,000 MWh =
$584,864,000
Industrial
SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD CALCULATIONS
The savings per household is determined by dividing the total savings by the number of residential
consumers. We are assuming that only 50 percent of commercial and industrial savings will be passed
on to residential consumers.
Sector
Savings passed on to households
Residential
$1,801,728,000
Commercial
.5 * $1,568,160,000 = $784,080,000
Industrial
.5 * $584,864,000 = $292,432,000
$2,878,240,000
Total savings per
household
$2,878,240,000 / 125,000,000 customers
96
= $23.03
94
95
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, p.10.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
96
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010, November). Table 5: Residential
Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State. Retrieved from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
PAGE 58 of 61
RELIABILITY AND POWER QUALITY
RELIABILITY AND POWER QUALITY COST CALCULATIONS
LBNL estimated the economic losses of unreliable electricity to be approximately $80 billion per year,
97
but it could be as high as $130 billion per year, not including power quality events. Reports by the
Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of Energy have estimated the cost of electricity
98
outages at $30 billion to $400 billion per year.
Estimate of annual national cost of outages to consumers and
businesses, based on the figures above
$150,000,000,000
RELIABILITY AND POWER QUALITY SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
Based on the assumption that smart grid investments will improve reliability and power quality
performance by 50 percent, $75 billion is estimated in indirect savings for consumers.
Recoverable waste from grid
improvements
.5 x $150,000,000,000 = $75,000,000,000
RELIABILITY AND POWER QUALITY SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
Assuming 50 percent of the commercial and industrial costs gets passed on to consumers, this works
out to an average household cost of outages of $410 per year.
Sales (million
99
MWh)
Outage cost savings
per sector
Residential
1,380
$27,000,000,000
$27,000,000,000 / 125,000,000
customers = $216
Commercial
1,350
$27,000,000,000
.5 *$27,000,000,000 / 125,000,000
customers = $108
980
$21,000,000,000
.5 * $21,000,000,000 / 125,000,000
customers = $84
3,710
$75,000,000,000
$408
Sector
Industrial
Total
Savings per household
97
LaCammare, K. H., & Eto, J. H. (2004). Understanding the Cost of Power Interruptions to U.S. Electricity
Consumers, LBNL 55718. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Analysis. Berkeley:
University of California Berkeley.
98
Primen. (2001). The Cost of Power Disturbances to Industrial and Digital Economy Companies.Consortium for
Electric Infrastructure to Support a Digital Society. Madison: EPRI.
99
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table A8.
PAGE 59 of 61
EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS
ANNUAL COST OF MAJOR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
100
The Annual Energy Outlook
summarizes major emissions from electricity generation as 2.4 billion
tons of carbon dioxide (Table A18), 7 million tons of sulfur dioxide (page 82) and 3 million tons of
nitrogen oxide (page 82) at costs estimated at $20 (assumed), $1,500 (page 82), and $3,000 (page 82)
per ton over the next decade, respectively. The total annual cost is estimated at $68 billion.
Emission
type
Emission amount
(tons)
Emission cost
per ton
Carbon
Dioxide
2,400,000,000
$20
2,400,000,000 tons * $20 / ton =
$48,000,000,000
Sulfur
Dioxide
7,000,000
$1,500
7,000,000 tons * $1500 / ton =
$10,500,000,000
Nitrogen
Oxide
3,000,000
$3,000
3,000,000 tons * $3,000 / ton =
$9,000,000,000
Emission cost total
Total
$67,500,000,000
EMISSIONS SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
The savings shown below assume a 30 percent reduction in emissions based on improvements in
conservation, generation efficiency and reductions in generation emissions.
Recoverable waste from grid
improvements
.3 * $67,500,000,000 / 3710 million MWh
101
= $5.45/MWh
100
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Tables
A1 ‒ A20.
101
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table
A8.
PAGE 60 of 61
EMISSIONS SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
The savings shown below assume a 30 percent reduction in emissions based on improvements in
conservation, generation efficiency and reductions in generation emissions.
Sales (million
102
MWh)
Outage cost savings
per sector
Savings per household
Residential
1,380
$5.45 * 1,380,000,000 =
$7,521,000,000
$7,515,550,000 / 125,000,000
customers = $60
Commercial
1,350
$5.45 * 1,350,000,000 =
$7,357,500,000
.5 *$7,368,400,000 / 125,000,000
customers = $29
980
$5.45 * 980,000,000 =
$5,341,000,000
.5 * $5,351,900,000 / 125,000,000
customers = $21
Sector
Industrial
Total
$110
102
U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table
A8.
PAGE 61 of 61